ZAIDUL KHALIDBHAI SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2016 passed by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2015, whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 120(B), 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC for short). By the impugned judgment, under Section 120(B) of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- fine and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of six months was imposed and under Section 395 of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- fine and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of one year was imposed and under Section 397 of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- fine and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of six months was imposed and all the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in short is that on 01.06.2006, the complainant was sleeping at his house situated in the fields and at around 1:30 a.m., the appellant along with other accused persons came to the house of the complainant armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the complainant and his wife on the head and the mother of the complainant also got knife injury near the head and one Samsung mobile phone of the complainant was looted. Therefore, the complaint was lodged with the police.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. A.V. Nair for the appellant contended that the appellant-accused was found guilty upon the strength of alleged discovery panchnama of place of occurrence at Exh. 15 as well as the appellant-accused came to be identified by the complainant during the course of T.I. Parade at Exh. 16. Learned advocate for the appellant contended that prosecution failed to bring on record as to how he had been made accused and thereafter, as the accused was taken to the scene of occurrence where he was already shown to the complainant three days prior to holding T.I. Parade and therefore, the entire procedure of carrying out T.I. Parade had become a farce and the learned trial court has wrongly placed reliance on such sort of evidence and wrongly convicted the appellant-accused as such.