ASHOKBHAI HARI YADAV Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who was original accused in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2004 tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, fast Track Court No. 10, Rajpipla for the commission of offence of murder of his wife Vimaladevi punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('ipc', for short) and at the end of the trial the appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 302 of ipc and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, R. I for three months, has challenged the legality and validity of his conviction in this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case in nutshell is that the appellant and his deceased wife vimaladevi were residing in area called shimla Colony, near Dam site, in Navagam town, in Narmada district. During their matrimonial life of about 5 years, they had no children and, therefore, the deceased was meted out with physical and mental torture by the appellant. The incident occurred on dated 31. 12. 2003, but on the previous day i. e. on 30. 12. 2003, there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased during night hours. The appellant also suspected the character and fidelity of his wife. It is the case of the prosecution that on 31. 12. 2003, between 7 am to 10 am, the appellant escorted his deceased wife vimaladevi to the hilly area, which was behind Shimla Colony and he inflicted fatal blows with stone on the head, face and other parts of the body of the deceased and the deceased succumbed to the injuries. At about 10 am, first informant PW-6 ramkhilavan, who was residing in the neighboring quarter received the message that the dead-body of the deceased vimaladevi was lying on the cliff in the hilly area. At that time, the first informant pw-6 Ramkhilavan was on his duty. When the dead-body of the deceased Vimaladevi was seen, fatal injuries were found on her body. He reported the incident to police and his FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, statements of material witnesses were recorded. At the instance of the appellant according to the case of the prosecution, his bloodstained clothes were recovered from his quarter. Some injury was also found on the person of the appellant. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that at about 7 am in the morning, on the day of the incident, the appellant was seen with his deceased wife Vimaladevi passing in shimla Colony. After collecting required material for the purpose of lodgment of chargesheet, the chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC, rajpipla. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned jmfc committed the case to the Court of sessions at Rajpipla, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 38 of 2004.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge framed charge against the appellant at Exh. 3 to which he did not plead guilty. Thereupon the prosecution adducted its oral and documentary evidence. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced necessary documentary evidence. After the prosecution concluded its oral evidence, the learned trial Judge recorded the further statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. The appellant generally denied the case of the prosecution and stated that he was falsely implicated. 3. 1 After appreciating the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution successfully proved the chain of circumstantial evidence and the chain is well established. The trial Court came to the conclusion that prior to the death of the deceased, she was found in the company of the appellant and, thereafter, her dead-body was found. The trial Court placed reliance upon the evidence regarding the recovery of bloodstained clothes of the appellant and observed that the blood of the deceased was found on his clothes. The trial Court further observed that the appellant did not satisfactorily explain the injury on his body. Ultimately, by impugned judgment and order dated 30. 09. 2004, the appellant came to be convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and the trial Court awarded the sentence as herein above referred to in this judgment.