ALTAF ALLARAKHAN YAKUBBHAI HAMIRKA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of prosecution brief of details is as under:

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. P. V. Patadiya appearing through Legal Aid Forum on behalf of the appellant has made submissions and urged this Court that the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the documentary evidence adduced on record and has delivered the judgment, which is untenable. He also failed to appreciate and consider that the solitary eye witness being wife of the deceased, can not be said to be an independent witness in this case, he has further submitted that she has a strong motive to implicate the present appellant in the crime in question. She has admitted in her deposition that she was receiving phone calls of one Jitendra Luhar of Halvad on the mobile phone. It is further argued that as her extra marital relation might have come to the knowledge of her husband, she has chosen to end his life and thereby, she has falsely implicated the appellant in a grave crime. She is a solitary shaky witness and should not be believed at all. It is further the case that if blows given by the appellant could have been so grave and indiscriminate, there must have been some blood stains found on his shirt. In serological examination and report of FSL, the blood marks are absent. The case of the prosecution is full of doubts, and therefore, it would be unsafe to sustain conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, so far as the appellant is concerned. He has urged that he being a person hailing from poor economic strata, has been implicated by investigating agency falsely in a grave crime as a scapegoat. It is the say of the learned advocate that CDR of Jitendra Luhar of Halvad were sought to be brought on record and the witness of prosecution had been suggested certain specific defence which were not answered by her and thus adverse inference is required to be drawn by the court.

(3.) Per contra, learned APP Mr. K. L. Pandya for the State has strongly defended the judgment and order of conviction. According to him, it is an open and shut case which hardly requires any further discussion. He argued that though the wife is a solitary eye witness, she being a witness of sterling quality, her evidence cannot be called in question. It is the further say of the learned APP that medical evidence as well as FSL report further corroborate the version of eye witness. It is further say that entire defence is very sham and shaky.