SURESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the convict against judgment and order dated 22.10.2012 by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Sessions Case No.8 of 2012. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the Court recorded conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and inflicted sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. The Court also imposed fine of Rs.20,000/-. The appellant is the sole convict.

(2.) The facts in brief are that an FIR being I-CR No.171 of 2011 came to be registered with Anand Police Station by one Alimabanu Bhikhasha Diwan, wherein it is narrated that the appellant-accused was after her daughter Sahidabanu (deceased) and informed her daughter that he was in love with her. The deceased had rebuked the accused. Feeling offended and keeping this in mind, on 18.09.2011, when the informant and Sahidabanu had gone for picking fire wood and while they were returning, at around 11;30, the accused assaulted the daughter Sahidabanu from behind, catching hold of her and when the informant tried to intervene, the accused assaulted Sahidabanu with knife on her neck. As a result, she fell down and the accused ran away from the place. On the informant raising shouts for help, the relatives rushed to place and took Sahidabanu to hospital where she was declared dead and as a result, FIR came to be registered. After due investigation, charge sheet came to be filed and upon compliance of Section 209, CrPC, sessions came to be committed.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the judgment and order recording conviction is against the evidence on record and that the prosecution has failed to establish charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the Sessions Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence of PW No.1 (informant-mother of the deceased), as she, in her deposition, has given a version which is not matching with the version in the FIR. The case of the prosecution was on the footing that the accused had one-sided love with deceased Sahidabanu and because of that, incident took place whereas in deposition, PW No.1 has stated that she was aware of the love affair of Sahidabanu and accused and when she came to know about it, she had scolded both of them and that she had opposed the relations on account of her status in society and community. It is also submitted that PW No.1 could not be termed to be an eyewitness, as from her deposition, it appears that she had reached the place of incident after hearing screaming.