ARVINDBHAI SHANKARBHAI RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant-original accused, who has been convicted by the learned Presiding Officer and Addl. Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Nadiad, vide judgment and order dated 21-2-2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 157 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Secs. 394 and 397 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer RI for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer one year SI for the offence punishable under Sec. 394 of IPC and to suffer SI for seven years for the offence punishable under Sec. 397 of IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused was given set off for the period already undergone in jail.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 18-7-2006, the complainant Kamleshbhai Nandlal Vadher was returning from Borivalli, Mumbai to Ahmedabad by train in a general compartment of Aravali Express. At about 4. 45 a. m. when the train stopped at Nadiad Railway Station, one of the passengers pointing fingers towards a thief shouted, "thief, catch the thief". He has also stated that the said thief committed theft of cash from the pocket of pants of a passenger, who was sleeping. The complainant helped this passenger named Shobharam Gomaji to catch the thief but the accused took out a knife and threatened that if he is caught, he will cause injuries with knife. Then scuffle took place between the accused and the complainant as well as the witness Shobharam. During this time, RPF personnel came there and caught the accused-Arvind Shankarbhai Raval, a resident of Ambawadi Patial, Surat. The sleeping passenger from whose pants the accused attempted to commit theft is named as Sundersing Mohansing Rajput. During the scuffle, Shobharam received injuries with blunt side of the knife from the accused. On the basis of the complaint, offence was registered for the offences punishable under Secs. 394, 397 of IPC and Sec. 135 of B. P. C. Act. At the end of investigation, as there appeared a prima facie case against the accused, charge sheet was filed against the accused before the learned J. M. F. C. , Nadiad for the offence punishable under Secs. 394 and 397 of IPC and Sec. 135 of B. P. Act. As the learned J. M. F. C. has no jurisdiction to try the case, he committed it to the Court of Sessions where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 157 of 2006 and allotted to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for trial. The learned Judge framed charge at Ex. 4 which was read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied the said charge and claimed to be tried.

(3.) TO prove the case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in all including the complainant-Kamleshbhai Nandlal Vadher, passenger Shobharam Gomaji, Sundarsinh Mohansing Devda, panch witnesses, doctor as well as investigating officer. The prosecution has also produced and placed reliance upon various documentary evidences such as arrest panchnama of the accused Ex. 9, panchnama of recovery of knife Ex. 11, medical certificate of Shobharam Ex. 13, complaint Ex. 18, etc.