YOGENDRA KASTURBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-3-1994 of the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 194 of 1992. The appellant was the sole accused in that case and was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Secs. 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the conviction under S.302 of I.P.C. He has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months with a fine of Rs. 500.00 and to suffer one month R.I. in default thereof on account of conviction under S.452 of I.P.C. The substantive sentence were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The incident leading to this conviction took place of 28-2-1992. The appellant was a student in the 2nd year of Master of Social Welfare (MSW) Course conducted by the Mahadevbhai Desai College of Social Service, affiliated to Gujarat Vidyapeeth. By a charge framed on 3rd August 1992, the appellant was charged to have killed one Ms. Kokilaben Navnitlal Jariwala during the period between 9-45 p.m. on 28-2-1992 and 7-30 a.m. on 29-2-1992. This Kokilaben was staying in a flat on 7th floor in Kamaldeep Apartments, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. She was a lady of about 55 years, unmarried, staying alone and was a professor in the said college, teaching Sociology. On the aforesaid date and time and at the residence of Kokilaben, the appellant was charged to have gagged her by her own saree and to have killed her by hitting her by an iron rod punishable under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also charged for criminal trespass under S.452 of the I.P.C. and for holding a dangerous weapon under S.135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. His defence in his statement under S.313 of Cr. P.C. is of total denial. At the end of the trial, the charge under S.135 of the Bombay Police Act could not be sustained for want of notification issued by Police Commissioner in that behalf. The accused-appellant was, however, held guilty of the aforesaid two charges punishable under Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as stated above.

(3.) The prosecution case as disclosed through the deposition of PW No. 4, Bipinchandra Chimanlal Shah, is as follows :- Bipinchandra is married to Niranjanaben, sister of the deceased - Kokilaben. Bipinchandra had visited the residence of the deceased on 28-2-1992 along with his wife Niranjanaben at about 9-15 p.m. and had stayed there for about half-an-hour. During the discussion with the deceased, she disclosed to Bipinchandra that an incident of theft of her money had taken place in the Vidyapeeth and that she had talked about the same with the Principal of her college. She had informed the Principal that the accused had committed the theft. The next day morning at about 7-30 to 8-00 a.m. Niranjanaben received a phone call from a neighbour of the deceased, one Nimeshbhai. Nimeshbhai informed her that on pressing the door-bell at the residence of the Kokilaben, the door was not being opened. Hence, PW 4 along with his wife rushed to the residence of the deceased. They could not get the door opened and hence they phoned the police. The policemen arrived and they called the fire-brigade to open the door. The men from the fire-brigade arrived at 8-30 a.m. and they broke the lock of the door and when they entered the flat they found the body of Kokilaben lying on the floor just near the door with her legs towards the door. There was a pool of blood near her head and the spectacles were lying away. It appeared as if somebody had hit on her forehead. There were blood-stains on the electric switch in that room and the light was put off. In the internal room the night lamp was on and the bed was seen tidy, covered with bed-sheet. Bipinchandra thereafter lodged the complaint which was produced on record as Exhibit 23. He also stated that the flat of the deceased was as per map which was produced at Exhibit 31.