RANJITSINH DHULSINH MAKWANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is convicted for causing murder of minor girl Mamta @ Arju and causing hurt to Mamta's mother Lilaben, on 30. 1. 2003 at about 2. 30 A. M, while they were sleeping on a cot in front of their house located at village : Bhadresar, Taluka : Idar. The appellant was tried and convicted by the Sessions Court, Himatnagar, in Sessions Case No. 116/2003 by judgment and order dated 30. 6. 2004. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence of murder, and for causing hurts to Lilaben, he was sentenced to R. I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default R. I for 15 days. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on the eventful night, injured Lilaben, wife of Gunvantsinh Babusinh Makwana, was sleeping on a cot in front of her house with her minor daughter Mamta @ Arju. At about 2. 30 A. M on 30. 1. 2003 the appellant suddenly attacked them with a knife and inflicted two knife blows on deceased Mamta, and upon resistance being offered by Lilaben, he also caused hurts on her arms with knife and then escaped. On shouts being raised by Lilaben, her husband Gunvantsinh woke up, so also, neighbours. They took both the victims to Astha Surgical Hospital, Idar, where they were given primary treatment and referred to Ahmedabad. It is the case of the prosecution that Mamta died on the way to Ahmedabad. Gunvantsinh Makwana lodged FIR with Jadar Police Station, on the basis of which, offence was registered and investigation was started. The police having found sufficient material against the appellant, filed charge sheet in the Court of learned J. M. F. C. Idar, who, in turn, committed the case to Sessions Court, Himatnagar, where Sessions Case No. 116/2003 came to be registered.

(3.) THE charge was framed against the accused at Exh. 7. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charged and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, led evidence and the Sessions Court, after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the charges were proved against the accused and convicted the accused for both the offences, as stated hereinabove.