SHYAM ALIAS SAMADHAN VAMANRAO Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by one of the accused persons out of two initially named as aggusted persons, against the judgement and order dated 9. 5. 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad in Sessions Case No. 537 of 2002 (Old Case No. 51 of 2002 ). The other person was not tried. The learned trial Judge by the aforesaid judgement convicted the appellant-accused under Sections 302/114 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. The accused is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.

(2.) IT is alleged by the prosecution that the present accused along with another accused who has not been put to try, had gone to the house of the complainant where they demanded meal. The wife of the complainant did not serve meal to them. This complaint was made to the complainant by these two persons in the night. The complainant assured that he will take care of it. It is alleged that two days' later the deceased wife was seen dead by the husband in the house when he returned after his work. Having seen the deceased wife, the complainant felt that she should have been done to death by the two persons, namely, Shyam Samadhan Vamanrao and Raju Patil who had not been served meal and had grudge against the wife. Except this suspicion, there is no other piece of evidence available on record. There is recovery of empty pouch of chewing guthka which is one of the accused chewed, from the scene of occurrence. The presence of pouch cover of guthka is in innocuous circumstance because such pouches are available in the street very commonly. Apart from this, there is no other evidence on record to connect the accused with the offence that he strangulated the deceased. Apart from the aforesaid incident, it was also alleged in the complaint that the ornaments of the lady have been missing. This was the additional motive alleged by the complainant but on being searched, all the ornaments got recovered from the house. Therefore, the motive alleged fell to the ground. Then came another additional evidence of recovery of some silver glasses from the accused which the complainant claimed that these were his glasses but these were not the complainant and the recovery is of no consequence because there had been no identification parade or any such identification took place to establish the identity of these glasses because there is no special feature identification in the glasses.

(3.) IN the aforesaid circumstances, the learned A. P. P. was not in a position to bring any circumstance which would convince the conscious of the Court to record conviction of the present appellant.