LAWS(GJH)-2008-11-180

MITHILESHKUMAR DWARKAPRASAD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On November 18, 2008
Mithileshkumar Dwarkaprasad Pandey 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 11 -2 -2002 rendered by learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 47 of 2001 convicting him for offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code and sentencing him to undergo sentence of life imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that first informant Babubhai Ishwarlal Patel with his son Kirtibhai was doing business of selling milk on otala of shop of Sukhadiya Sweet Mart, opposite Jethabhai's Vav, in Ishanpur, Ahmedabad. On 16 -7 -2000 at late night at about 2 -30, the first informant and his son Kirtibhai came at the 'otala' for selling milk. At about 3 -30 late night they unloaded milk from milk -van. Thereafter the first informant went to his house but returned immediately and found that his son Kirtibhai was lying on 'Otala' of aforesaid shop in bleeding condition and was unable to speak. The family members were informed and Kirtibhai was taken to L.G. Hospital, Ahmedabad for treatment and during treatment he succumbed to his injuries.

(3.) ON the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Babubhai Ishwarlal Patel, the father of the deceased offence was registered and investigation was started. At the end of investigation, the accused were arrested and charge sheet came to be filed against them. As the offence was triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to the the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 47 of 2001. Learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Ahmedabad framed charge Exh. 8 for the offence punishable u/ss 302, 120 -B and 34 of the I.P. Code and u/s 135 of the Bombay Police Act of the against the accused. The accused denied having committed offence and claimed to be tried and therefore the prosecution adduced evidence.