SHANABHAI DASHRATHBHAI BHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Appeal No.291 of 2015 is directed against the judgement and order of conviction dated 19th July, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajpipla, District : Narmada in the Sessions Case No.4 of 2014 by the appellants - original accused nos. 1, 3 and 4. Whereas, the Criminal Appeal No.1176 of 2015 is directed against the judgement and order of conviction dated 19th July, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajpipla, District : Narmada in the Sessions Case No.4 of 2014 by the appellant - original accused no.2. By way of the impugned judgement and order of conviction, the appellants are held guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life wfine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. Since both these appeals arise out of the selfsame judgement and order of conviction and sentence, those were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgement.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present appeals are as under:-

(3.) The learned learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the trial court erred in holding that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the trial court wrongly placed reliance on the evidence of the child-witness - Revaben. It is contended that the child-witness Revaben has admitted in her cross-examination that she was tutored by Dilipbhai. It is contended that the evidence of the child witness - Revaben is not reliable and trustworthy. It is also contended that PW-11 - Dilipbhai has stated in his cross-examination that when he reached the place of incident, the blood was coming out from the mouth of the deceased and she was unconscious. It is contended that Dilipbhai was the first person, after the childwitness - Revaben, to visit the place of incident and Dilipbhai has admitted in his cross-examination that when he reached the place of incident, the deceased was unconscious. Thereafter, he went to Chametha, which is about 7 kms. away from the place of incident and thereafter, the complainant had went to the place of incident with Dilipbhai. It is contended that it is not possible that the deceased had told the complainant regarding incident, who had assaulted her and how she had sustained injuries. The learned counsel appearing for the accused nos.1, 3 and 4 submitted that there was no reason for the accused nos.1, 3 and 4 to pounce on the deceased. It is contended that they might have tried to intervene in the quarrel so as to restrain the accused no.2 from inflicting further injuries on the deceased. It is contended that there is no cogent and convincing evidence as regards the abetment of the accused nos.1, 3 and 4 in commission of the offence. It is contended that the judgement and order of conviction is contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.