KANUBHAI MANGABHAI SENMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in instant appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) is to the correctness of the judgment and order dated 25.5.2000 rendered in Sessions Case No.108 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana by which appellant/original accused No.1 ('A -1' for short) has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.200/ - i.d., imprisonment for ten days for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and R.I. For six months and fine of Rs.100/ - i.d., imprisonment for 5 days for commission of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The order further stipulated that A -1 has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506(2) and Section 114 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. By the impugned judgment and order, original accused No.2 ('A -2' for short) has been acquitted of the offences with which he was charged.

(2.) THE prosecution case as disclosed from the FIR and unfolded during trial is as under:

(3.) MS . Shilpa Shah, learned advocate appointed by the Legal Aid Committee for A -1, has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused as all the witnesses are interested and related to each other. In the said incident, mother of A -1 has also received injuries. It is also submitted by her that there was previous enmity between the accused persons on one hand and injured and the deceased on the other. Therefore, according to her, the impugned judgment and order is contrary to the evidence on record which deserves to be quashed and set aside and thereby the accused may be acquitted of the offences with which he was charged. She, therefore, urged to allow the appeal.