PUNABHAI JITABHAI BARIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 7-3-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra, whereby the appellant-original accused No. 1 - one of the three accused - came to be convicted for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1990, by filing this appeal through jail, inter alia contending that he was innocent and not guilty for the alleged offence.

(2.) The appellant is also provided legal aid as desired upon receipt of memo of appeal through jail. However, unfortunately, the learned Advocate who was assigned the work of defending the appellant under the legal aid scheme has not been able to convince us. We have extensively heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and we have also carefully and dispassionately examined the original record, proceedings and evidence relied upon by the prosecution.

(3.) A short resume of the prosecution case leading to rise of this appeal may be shortly narrated at the outset. The appellant and his two sons came to be charged under Ss. 302 and 201, IPC by the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1990. The appellant was accused No. 1 and his two sons were accused Nos. 2 and 3 viz. Navalsinh Punabhai and Kantilal Punabhai respectively before the trial Court. The substratum of the charge was that the appellant had committed murder on 20-5-1990 at midnight in village Sajora in Devgadh taluka of Panchmahals district, his son Balvant by assaulting with the help of axe on the right side of the neck and it was done with intention to murder and thereby committed an offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC. The appellant was also charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC, in that, it was alleged that with intention to dispose of the material evidence of murder of his son, the dead body was thrown in the well of Balvant Shana and a false complaint was filed by the appellant against Teta Sona with the help of his two sons. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also charged for having committed offences punishable under Secs. 302 and 201 read with Sec. 114 of the IPC.