DAHYABHAI MANGABHAI VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short, 'Code, 1973'] is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2011 passed by the learned 3rd [Adhoc] Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, Camp at Ankleshwar in Sessions Case No.72 of 2010 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5, 000/ in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

(2.) The Case Of The Prosecution Has Geneses in allegations of illicit relationship of wife of the complainant with that of accused and during night hours of the incident around 9:00 to 9:30 pm on 15.03.2010 the accused went inside the house and came out with iron rod and inflicted a blow on the head of deceased causing grievous injuries for which he took preliminary treatment at Civil Hospital, Bharuch and thereupon shifted to S.S.G. Hospital, Vadodara and on 16.03.2010 i.e. the next day morning at 9:00 am succumbed to the injuries.

(3.) Mr. M.M.Saiyed, Learned Counsel For The appellant, has taken us through the entire record of the case containing oral as well as documentary evidence and submitted that PW1 and PW2 are brothers of PW8, who is the complainant and PW9 is a distant relative while PW13, PW14, PW14, PW15, PW16 and PW17 are panch witnesses of various panchnamas. The documentary evidence of map Exh.16 postmortem report Exh.19, complaint Exh.24, FSL report with serology Exh.47 and referred to testimonies of PW2, who in his examinationinChief specifically referred to name of Budhiyabhai, complainant, PW8, who received injury on head by iron rod by the accused and fell down on the ground and taken to the hospital. No doubt, it is fairly submitted that while recording such evidence whether it was genuine deposition of the PW2 or due to inadvertence or by any mistake such recording had taken place, but in the judgment learned trial Judge believed that it was a typographical error.