LAWS(GJH)-2008-11-48

SOMABHAI ARJANBHAI MAHIDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On November 17, 2008
SOMABHAI ARJANBHAI MAHIDA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant - convict has filed present appeal u/s 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23-1-2001 rendered by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 76 of 1998 convicting him for offence punishable u/s. 302 of the I. P. Code and sentencing him to undergo sentence of life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to undergo sentence of one month's Simple Imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that deceased Manjuben was wife of appellant and had two sons Bhupat and Hemant aged about 16 and 12 years respectively and one daughter Mayuri aged about 8 years; and their son Bhupat and daughter Mayuri were staying at the house of deceased Manjuben's mother and son Hemant was staying with the appellant. It is further prosecution case that on 15-4-1998 at about 7-00 in the morning deceased Manjuben and daughter Mayuri started to go to mines for work by bus. After disembarking from the bus while they were going towards government farm house, appellant came out from ditch of canal with knife and gave knife blows on the person of Manjuben and on account of assault deceased Manjuben fell down and died on account of injuries.

(3.) ON the basis of the complaint lodged by Nanji Karshan the brother of the deceased 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 u/s 302 of the I. P. Code. As the offence was triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 76 of 1998. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar framed charge Exh. 4 for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I. P. Code against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and therefore the prosecution adduced evidence.