MOTILAL KASTURJI KOLI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred these appeals 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa on 31. 1. 2002 in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1999 convicting and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment of one year for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for four months for the offence under.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 17. 4. 1999 at about 10:00 p. m. , the accused and one unidentified accused committed murder of Keshabhai Hemrajbhai, Pachabhai Madhabhai and Bhamrabhai Madhabhai with weapons like axe, dhariya and wooden log.

(3.) ON the basis of the first information report lodged by Ugamben Sonabhai, 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 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. As the offence was triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to the City Sessions Court and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 120 of 1999. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge Exh-2 for the aforesaid offences 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 learned trial Judge explained to the accused the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence. The accused in their further statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stated that they have not committed the offence. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the accused, the Court convicted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, both the accused have preferred the appeals. As both the appeals are against the same judgment, we have heard both the appeals together and decided the same by this common judgment.