KESHAJI HIRAJI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant came to be tried along with Sajanben Keshaji and Reshamben Dhulaji for the offence of murder of Bhavanji Javanji, allegedly, committed by them on 14th August, 1998 around 13.00 hours, at village Ganjan of Modasa Taluka of Sabarkantha District. It is alleged that the appellant was armed with a knife whereas the acquitted accused were armed with sticks and they committed assault on the deceased while the deceased was resting in the front courtyard of his house. On the deceased being assaulted, shouts were raised and hearing those shouts, witnesses Udaji Jehaji, Kismatben Bhavanji and Bharatsinh Laxmansinh and other witnesses came to the spot. The accused persons, therefore, escaped from the place. The deceased was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead. An F.I.R. was lodged by Udaji Jehaji before Modasa Police at the hospital itself. On the basis of the F.I.R., an offence came to be registered and investigated. The police, having found sufficient evidence, filed charge sheet in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Modasa, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions case No. 66 of 1998 came to be registered. The Sessions Court Camping at Modasa framed charge at Exhibit 1 and the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the Sessions Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution was unable to prove the charges against original accused Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Sajanben Keshaji and Reshamben Dhulaji and, therefore, acquitted them of the charges levelled against them. The Sessions Court, however, came to a conclusion that the charges against accused No. 1-Keshaji Hiraji Parmar were proved and, therefore, convicted him for the offence of murder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. The judgment was delivered on 12.7.1999, which is the subject in this appeal.

(2.) We have heard learned Advocate, Mr. Kartik V. Pandya, for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mrs. Patel, for the respondent-State.

(3.) Mr. Pandya contended that the prosecution has examined only interested witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased and independent witnesses, though available, have not been examined by the prosecution. Mr. Pandya submitted that the depositions of the eye-witnesses, if examined, run contrary to each other. Lastly, it was contended that the motive for the offence is not properly proved. What is projected as motive is too fragile a ground for committing murder and that also is not properly proved. Under the circumstances, the appeal may be allowed, conviction may be set aside and the convict may be set at liberty.