KANUBHAI BHAGWANBHAI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant original accused No.1 Mr. Kanubhai Bhagwanbhai Nayak u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.9.2011 rendered in Sessions Case No.101 of 2010 by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, whereby the appellant - accused No.1 was directed to undergo sentence for life imprisonment for the offences punishable u/s 302 of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo RI for one month. However, the learned Sessions Judge gave benefit of doubt to accused No.2 namely Mr. Ashwinbhai Prabhubhai Talpada for the offences punishable u/s 302, 120-B r/w section 34 of the IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are such that deceased Harikrishnabhai Narottambhai Patel, aged 52 years and his father deceased Narottambhai Durlabhjibhai Patel, aged 75 years were residing at Tandalja, Taluka Sankheda. It is further the case of the prosecution that deceased Harikrishnabhai is the husband of his sister and the accused also belong to Tandelja, Taluka Sankheda. It is further the case of the prosecution that there was enmity between the deceased and the accused since long. One, Rajubhai Shankarbhai was nephew of accused No.1. Deceased Harikrishna has laid live electric wire in his field two months prior to the incident in question. At that time nephew of accused No.1-Rajubhai came in contact with the live electric wire. In the result he got electrocuted and died. In these circumstances, accused No.1 entertained doubt that both the deceased have intentionally laid the live electric wire in their field only to kill the nephew of accused No.1-Rajubhai. After this incident, accused No.1 was giving threats to kill both the deceased. Because of this enmity, accused have committed murder of deceased Narottambhai and his son Harikrishnabhai in this case.

(3.) Before we consider the submissions made at bar, it is necessary to reproduce the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ajay Singh and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another reported in (2017) 3 SCC 330 and more particularly, para 1 and 13.