MINUBHAI ALIAS MANU KANABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26. 3. 2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No. 46 of 2003 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the appellant-original accused for the offences punishable under sections 328 and 394 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R. I. for five years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, R. I for two months for offence punishable under section 328 of IPC. The appellant was sentenced to suffer R. I for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, R. I for two months. The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:

(2.) THE complainant, Prembharti Guruharibharti was travelling in a local train from Ahmedabad to Botad on 5. 10. 2002. As luggages, he was having a trunk (iron box) and a tape recorder-cum-radio, cassettes and some other goods were inside the box. It is alleged that, in the train, some intoxicating substance was mixed with tea and the said tea was offered to the complainant by a co-passenger (present appellant-accused ). After having the tea, the complainant became unconscious and thereafter, the luggages were taken away by the accused. When the train reached at Botad, he regained consciousness and he found that his luggages were missing. When got down from the train, he came to know from newspaper 'gujarat Samachar' that by adopting the above method of offering tea with intoxicants, passengers were looted and the accused was arrested in that connection. So he lodged a complaint on 15. 10. 2002 before the Investigating Officer, Ahmedabad railway station and on the basis of the said complaint, offence was registered as AR. I 201/2002. During the investigation, Identification Parade was held through Executive Magistrate and panchnama to that effect was also prepared which is at Exh. 16. The complainant identified the accused during the T. I. Parade. During the investigation, statement of the relevant witnesses were recorded as well as panchnama were prepared and at the end of the investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under section 328 and 394 of IPC. As the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case for offence under section 394 of IPC, vide order dated 22. 1. 2003, the case was committed to the Sessions Court under section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Charge was framed for offences under section 328 and 394 of IPC which is at Exh. 1. As the accused denied the charges, trial was commenced. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned advocate for the parties, the Sessions Court has convicted the accused as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.