BHUPENDRASINH @ BHUPAT NARSINH BARAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant convict has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural on 18.1.2001 in Sessions Case No.86 of 2000 convicting him for the offence punishable under sections 302, 452 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2000/ - in default thereof to undergo RI for 2 years for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/ - in default thereof to undergo RI for 2 months for the offence punishable under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for 2 months and to pay fine of Rs.100/ - in default thereof to undergo RI for one month for the offence punishable under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence is passed under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, there was a dispute between deceased Arunaben and the convict with regard to immovable property and the convict was pressurizing the deceased to give signature to enable him to sell the property of the deceased. On 10.2.1998 at about 9:30 a.m., deceased Arunaben was cooking in the kitchen, at that time the convict came to the house and straightway went to the kitchen and inflicted knife blows to Arunaben. As Arunaben shouted, neighbour Champalal came there and caught hold of the convict. Amarsinh and others and took Arunaben downstairs. The convict also came there and inflicted one knife blow to Arunaben. Thereafter, Arunaben was taken to the hospital but she was declared dead.

(3.) ON the basis of the first information report lodged by Amarsinhbhai Narsinhbhai grand father of the deceased, offence was registered and investigation was started. At the end of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 452, 302 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code. As the offence was triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and it was registered as Sessions Case No.86 of 2000. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge Exh -3 for the aforesaid offence against the accused. The accused denied having committed the offence and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused were explained to him. The accused in his further statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stated that he is innocent. The accused also filed written statement Exh -44 stating that he has been falsely implicated. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the accused, the Court convicted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No.884 of 2002. The State has also preferred Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2001 for enhancement of the sentence.