BHAYALU @ SANJAYBHAI VINODRAI BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeals are filed by the appellants against judgement and order passed by the learned trial Judge on 30.5.2000 in Sessions Case Nos. 299 of 1998 and 258 of 1999 whereby learned Judge convicted accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/ - each, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Learned Judge further convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/ - each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) PW 1 Babubhai Roopabhai Khada, in his First Information Report, alleged that two accused came to his galla. Prior to that, deceased along with his cousin was there. Six persons arrived at the scene of offence and assaulted the deceased. On this FIR investigation started. After investigation, charge -sheet was filed against six accused persons. One of them, namely, Hari Om Bapu accused No. 1 died during the course of trial. Out of five accused persons, three accused persons were acquitted by learned trial Judge and accused No. 2 Bhailu @ Sanjay V. Bhatt and accused No. 3 Vipulbhai @ Dayavan Hariprasad Pandya were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, assaulting judgement, stated that the case is based on direct evidence of three eye witnesses, namely, PW -1 Babubhai Roopabhai Khada; PW -2 Pratapsinh Dhirubhai and PW -3 Prabhatsinh Parshottamdas Chauhan. Criticizing the statement of three eye witnesses, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW -2 Pratapsinh Dhirubhai is alleged to be the cousin of the deceased. The assailants were not known to any one of the alleged eye witnesses and therefore no name was given in the FIR. Suspect accused were arrested and then identification parade was conducted and only two appellants who were identified at the identification parade. Rest of the accused were not subject matter of identification.