TERU VICHHIYA BHURIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who was original accused in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2002 preferred this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham on dated 30. 4. 2005 recording conviction of the appellant accused for the offences punishable under Sections 397 of Indian Penal Code ('ipc', for short) and 25 (1) (A) of Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1) (A) of Arms Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in nutshell is that on dated 5. 9. 2001, at about 9. 45 p. m. in the outskirts of town Anjar, the appellant accused along with four unknown persons caused serious injuries to the first informant Vijayaben Bharatbhai Sorathiya and looted golden and silver ornaments, wrist watch and cash amount, in all worth Rs. 35,725/ -. It is further alleged that the appellant accused as well as unknown co-accused persons were armed with tamancha and sticks and caused serious bodily injuries to first informant Vijayaben. In connection with this incident, first informant Vijayaben lodged FIR before police and the offence was registered. The police investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, statements of material witnesses were recorded, test identification parade ('tip', for short) was arranged. Some of the ornaments in their original forms were seized by drawing panchnamas. After the police collected required material for the purpose of filing chargesheet, the chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Gandhidham. As the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge framed charge against the accused at Exh. 1 to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. After the completion of the evidence, the learned trial Judge recorded the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in his further statement, the accused generally denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that he was innocent and the evidence adduced by the prosecution is false and he is falsely implicated.