HARDAS VIRA CHAVDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 2167 of 2008 preferred by the accused is directed against the judgement and order of conviction dated 28. 04. 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, khambhaliya in Sessions Case No. 71 of 2004, whereby the accused nos. 1 to 3 have been convicted of the charges leveled against them under section 304 part I and 447 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The original accused nos. 1 and 2 have also been convicted under section 135 of B. P. Act.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 06. 05. 2004, at around 8. 00 am the complainant in his field was carrying out work pertaining to constructing water tank. The complainant, his wife, son, daughter-in-law, grandsons and a mason Nathu Jutha were present at that time. At around 10. 00 am the accused persons came to his field and started asking as to why Rambhai had stopped the work in the accused's field. An altercation ensued and the accused got excited. At that time, accused nos. 1 and 2 took out knives from their custody and the accused nos. 3 and 4 caught hold of the complainant's son. The accused no. 2 stabbed the complainant's son on the left chest and the accused no. 1 stabbed the complainant's son on the left side of his abdomen. The complainant and the mason intervened and tried to rescue the complainant's son but accused no. 1 pushed the complainant and accused no. 3 inflicted a blow upon the head of the mason Nathu with a wooden plank which was available nearby. The wife, daughter-in-law and grandsons of the complainant started screaming and therefore one Shri Jeshabhai parbatbhai came running. The accused therefore ran away and escaped. The victim complainant's son was taken to the government hospital but he was declared dead on arrival.

(3.) MR. P. M Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Joshi for the accused has submitted that a cross complaint was filed on the date of the incident. He has submitted that the accused Rajshi Vira had received bleeding injury on his forehead and stitches were required to be taken by the Doctor. The complainant has not mentioned the said injury and therefore there is a serious infirmity in the case of the prosecution.