LAWS(GJH)-2018-1-122

RAJESH @ RAJU BHIKHABHAI RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On January 15, 2018
Rajesh @ Raju Bhikhabhai Raval Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of respondent-State.

(2.) This application for bail is filed by the applicant under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, undergoing imprisonment pursuant to conviction and sentence for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and in default of the same further RI of three years and further to undergo RI of six months for the offence under Sections 323 of Indian Penal Code pursuant to judgement and order dated 7.11.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2013.

(3.) In support of the prayer as above, learned advocate appearing for the applicant/original appellant/convict has invited our attention to testimonies of various witnesses who claimed to have seen the incident in question and they are P.W.s 4, 5 and 6 namely brother, mother and sister of the deceased and also that of the Doctor who carried out autopsy report, P.W.1 and other such evidence. It is submitted that the evidence of the above eye witnesses and medico legal if examined in the context of findings, reasonings and conclusion drawn by learned trial Judge about guilt of the accused, learned trial Judge has believed the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt but at the same time it appears according to learned advocate for the convict that witnessing the crime by P.W.s 4, 5 and 6 is highly doubtful. P.W.4, though projected to be a witness receiving injury but had not received any medical treatment. Other injured namely, Chandaben aunt of deceased was not examined. Besides, in the judgement, no discussion is made by learned trial Judge of the nature of injuries, though postmortem report reveal various injuries on the body of the person and that inquest panchnama has only one injury. Likewise the defence witness reveal that accused-convict were not involved in the offence but again no reasons are given for not believing their version and considering the above, prayer as made in this application be granted.