VIJAYBHAI SOMABHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred from the common judgment dated 07. 01. 2003 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajkot in Sessions Case Nos. 30 of 2001 and 31 of 2001 whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1) (a) and Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959. He is sentenced to imprisonment for life with other sentences and fines. The appeal is restricted by learned counsel Shri P. S. Gondaliya, appearing for the appellant to urging the issue of conversion of conviction from Section 302 to 304 of IPC and to reducing the sentence accordingly. It was generally submitted by him that the appellant was himself a victim of atrocities and had presented himself and lodged the FIR immediately after the alleged offence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE relevant facts emerging from the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP after perusal of relevant evidence on record are that the appellant lodged the FIR at 10. 45 a. m. on 2. 11. 2000 about the incident of the victim being killed at around 9. 30 a. m. According to that FIR being CR No. 785 of 2000 registered at Rajkot Taluka Police Station, the victim Ajitsinh had quarelled with the parents of the appellant on 21. 10. 2000 and issued threats of cutting the appellant into pieces on account of their objection to water supply at the public water tap being diverted to the use of a tea cabin. The victim was alleged to have intervened in support of the person running the tea cabin. While issuing threats and throwing words of abuse on the parents of the appellant, the victim was also alleged to have clarified that he was not afraid of any atrocity case even as he knew the appellant to be belonging to Scheduled Caste. According to the complaint, the appellant had approached an advocate and approached the Commissioner of Police with an application on 23. 10. 2000. Thereafter, the victim was alleged to be threatening the appellant whenever they came across each other on the public road. Therefore, he had started carrying with him a country-made pistol which he had bought in 1995.

(3.) ON 2. 11. 2000, while the appellant had stopped for buying a cigarette at a pan shop, the victim had come to the nearby laundry and, seeing the appellant, he had initiated quarrel. Upon being attacked, the appellant had fired at the victim at a close range which resulted into death of the victim. After fleeing from the spot, the appellant consulted his brother and upon his advice, presented himself at the Taluka Police Station with the pistol, according to the complaint (Exh. 77 ).