HARIVADAN BABUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30. 4. 2007 in Sessions Case No. 28 of 2006 passed by the learned sessions Judge, Valsad recording the conviction of the accused persons for the offences under Section 302 r/w. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal code [herein after be referred to as the "ipc"] and imposing sentence for life and fine, of Rs. 1,000/-, in default RI for further period of one month, also recording the conviction of the accused persons for the offence under Section 346 of the IPC and imposing sentence of RI for two years, also recording the conviction of the accused persons for the offence under section 201 of the IPC and imposing sentence of RI for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default RI for further period of one month and further also recording the conviction of the accused persons for the offence under Section 342 of the IPC and imposing sentence of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default RI for one month.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly summarized are: [2. 1] It is the case of the prosecution that on 23. 01. 2006, the deceased Ashokbhai Nanubhai accompanied by his brother-in-law complainant Kantibhai Manilal Patel had gone to Udwada R. S. Zanda chowk on his scooter and they went at Tea Stall of Ishwarbhai for taking tea where deceased Ashokbhai talking with his friend Durlabhbhai kikubhai Bhandari. Thereafter, Durlabhbhai Kikubhai Bhandari took ashokbhai near the railway crossing where 3-4 persons had come in the maruti Car. Thereafter, when the complainant went where the deceased ashokbhai (brother-in-law) was talking with other 3-4 persons. It is alleged that they had said that they would take deceased Ashokbhai (brother-in-law) to the house of Gulia at Valsad and they had took deceased in maruti Fronty Car bearing No. GJ-15-K-9263. It is also alleged that they had said that they would send the deceased within one and half hours to two hours and they also gave the mobile number and stated that if there was delay in returning of the deceased, they may b contacted on aforesaid mobile number. It is the case of the prosecut that thereafter, the complainant went to Daman for his work and when he returned back in the evening at 4. 00 to 5. 00, he inquired from has sister Madhuben as to whether she had talked with the deceased on the given number or not. Thereupon, sister Madhuben stated to the complainant that when she tried to talk on aforesaid mobile number, different persons were talking differently and, thereafter, switched off the mobile phone. It is also stated that they also inquired with the sister, whether she was going to police station. [2. 2] Thereafter, the inquiry and search was made about the deceased Ashokbhai for two days and, therefore, as the deceased had not returned on 25. 01. 2006, the complaint came to be lodged with Pardi police Station, which has been registered as C. R. No. M2/2006.

(3.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of the complaint, the offence came to be registered as C. R. No. I-12/2006. After investigation was over, a charge-sheet came to be filed. As the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad was framed the charges and read over and explained to the accused.