AJIM YUSUFBHAI SURYAMEMON Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-original accused under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) against the judgment and order dated 23.1.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.32 of 2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, whereby original accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 135(1) of Gujarat Police Act. Both these sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused was given set off for the period already undergone in jail.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on account of dispute between the appellant accused and the complainant side, though Shoeb and the appellant-accused were good friends, the accused was demanding the amount from Shoeb. As per the case of prosecution, as the appellant has picked up a quarrel with Shoeb in connection with the monetary dispute resulting in scuffle, a complaint came to be filed before Pradhyuman Nagar Police Station by appellant accused Ajim against Shoeb alleging infliction of a knife injury, but from that day onwards, strained relations existed between the appellant and the complainant. It is further the case of the prosecution that thereafter, appellant accused Ajim used to administer threat time and again to Shoeb and his brother. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_228_LAWS(GJH)4_2017_1.html</FRM> <FRM>JUDGEMENT_228_LAWS(GJH)4_2017_2.html</FRM> <FRM>JUDGEMENT_228_LAWS(GJH)4_2017_3.html</FRM> <FRM>JUDGEMENT_228_LAWS(GJH)4_2017_4.html</FRM>

(3.) Learned advocate, Mr. A.D.Shah appearing for the appellant accused, has vehemently contended that the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Judge is not in consonance with the material on record and the findings arrived at for convicting the appellant are perverse to the record. Mr. Shah has further contended that though there are several witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the case, few of them are very relevant to consider the present case. For that purpose, on an analytical view of the evidence, Mr. Shah, taking this Court through the medical evidence of Medical OficerDr.Rohit Popatbhai Nakum-P.W.No.2 examined at Exh.19, Medical Officer-Dr.S.D.Mandviya-P.W.No.1 examined at Exh.15 and FSL Officer-Nalinkant Narsingbhai VyasP.W.No.21 examined at Exh.74 in co-relation with documentary evidence in the form of panchnama of collection of blood sample, panchnama with respect to arrest of the accused, post mortem note reflecting on page 503 of paper book compilation, inquest panchnama reflecting on page 551 and FSL report which is part of paper book compilation on pages 651 and 663, has contended that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge is not in consonance with the medical evidence.