CR.A/12320/2000 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 123 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = LAXMAN @ LAKHABHAI SHANABHAI RATHOD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER ========================================= = Appearance : MS SADHANA SAGAR for Appellant MS PUNANI, APP for Opponent ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 17/12/2008 CR.A/12320/2000 2/5 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA) 1. The appellant – convict has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.1.2000 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 104 of 1999 convicting him for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo various sentences. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was married to Ramilaben Udesinh. That on 1.2.1999, Poonamben and her sister with Ramilaben went to leave Ramilaben to her matrimonial house but Ramilaben said that she would come after holi. The accused told them that he would come to take Ramilaben after holi. Therefore, Poonamben, Savitaben and Ramilaben started to back to their house and the accused with dhariya also followed them. At some distance from village, the accused attacked Savitaben with dhariya. As Ramilaben tried to rescue her, the accused also caused injuries to Ramilaben and Poonamben. On account of the injuries caused to Savitaben, she died. 3. On the basis of the first information report lodged by Poonamben, offence was registered and investigation was started. At the end of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence punishable under CR.A/12320/2000 3/5 JUDGMENT sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. As the offence was triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and it was registered as Sessions Case No.104 of 1999. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge framed charge Exh-4 for the aforesaid offence against the accused. The accused denied having committed the offence and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused were explained to him. The accused in his further statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stated that false case is filed against him. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the accused, the Court convicted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the accused has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard learned advocate Ms. Sadhana Sagar for the appellant and learned APP Ms. HB Punani at length and in great detail. We have also perused the impugned judgment and record and proceedings of the trial Court. 5. It appears from the prosecution case that there were two eye witnesses to the incident and one of the eye witnesses was the wife of the convict. 6. PW 3 Ramilaben Udesinh Exh-18 is the wife of the accused. Her evidence indicates on the day of incident, while CR.A/12320/2000 4/5 JUDGMENT she, Savita and Poonamben were returning to their house, the convict followed them with dhariya and when, they reached at the field, the accused attacked Savitaben with dhariya and inflicted several blows. The accused also assaulted the witness and PW 1 Poonamben. The witness has been extensively cross examined but nothing is brought on record to impeach her credibility. It is significant that the witness is the wife of the convict and there is nothing to indicate that she had any grievance against the convict. There is no reason for her to falsely implicate the convict. Therefore, her evidence was rightly relied upon by the learned trial Judge in convicting the accused. 7. The evidence of another eye witness PW 1 Poonamben Exh-10 also indicates that the accused attacked Savitaben with dhariya and also caused injuries to her and PW 3 Ramila. 8. The evidence of PW 2 Dr. Megha Darji Exh-14 indicates that she performed postmortem of Savitaben and also examined PW 1 Poonamben and PW 3 Ramilaben. The evidence of this witness indicates that death of Savita was homicidal and the injuries were possible by muddamal dhariya. It also indicates that injuries cause to PW 1 and PW 3 were possible by the same weapon. The postmortem report Exh-15 indicates that there were external injuries on the dead body of Savitaben and cause of death was shock due to excessive hemorrhage. The medical certificates Exh-20 and 21 indicates that injuries were caused to PW 1 and 3 with dhariya. CR.A/12320/2000 5/5 JUDGMENT 9. In view of the above evidence, it emerges that the accused was involved in the murder of Savitaben and had caused grievous hurt to PW 1 Poonamben and PW 3 Ramilaben with dangerous weapon dhariya. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in convicting the appellant convict for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned advocate for the appellant has not been able to point out any discrepancy in the prosecution case or any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed and the judgment and order of conviction of the appellant dated 12.1.2000 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 104 of 1999, is confirmed. Muddamal be disposed of as ordered by the learned trial Court. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) (BANKIM N. MEHTA, J.) shekhar/-