PRAVINBHAI DHULIYABHAI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appellants ('A -1' and 'A -2' for short) of instant appeal were charged and tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, Camp at Chhotaudepur ('the trial Court' for short) in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2000 for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) on the accusation that they have committed murder of Ramdas and caused injury to Madhuriben with the weapon 'paliyu' in connection with a dispute with regard to giving share of the sale price of a tamarind tree. At the end of the trial, both the accused were found guilty to the offences with which they were charged and the trial court vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2000 convicted both the accused for the said offences and sentenced both the accused persons to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/ - i.d., RI for one year for the offence under section 302 IPC; RI for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/ - i.d., RI for six months for the offence under section 452 IPC and RI for six months and fine of Rs.500/ - i.d., RI for three months for the offence under section 324 IPC. It is also ordered that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

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

(3.) MS . Sadhna Sagar, learned advocate for the accused appointed by the Legal Aid Committee for the accused, has fairly conceded that deceased Ramdas has died a homicidal death. She has submitted that P.W.1, Madhuriben who is the complainant is interested witness and therefore no reliance can be placed upon her oral testimony. She has emphasised that the complainant has not deposed before the Court as per the complaint Ex.9 given by her. According to Ms. Sagar, there are lot many contradictions in the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint as well as in her oral testimony which is fatal to the prosecution case. All other witnesses are hearsay witnesses and therefore no reliance can be placed upon their oral testimony. The panch witnesses who were panch to the panchnama of discovery and recovery of weapons allegedly at the instance of A -1 and A -2 have not supported the prosecution case and therefore recovery of weapons is not proved. Therefore, according to her, the prosecution has filed to establish the charge levelled against the accused.