CR.A/716/2001 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 716 of 2001 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 ? No. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No. 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 ? No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No. ===================================================== DINESHBHAI MAHADEVBHAI PATEL - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ===================================================== Appearance : MR YAJUVENDRASINGH VAGHELA FOR MR HN JHALA for Appellant MS MITA PANCHAL APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and CR.A/716/2001 2/7 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 27/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA) 1. The appellant – convict has filed the present appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and challenged the judgment and order of conviction passed on 31-7-2001 by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.389 of 2000 for offences punishable u/s 302 of the I.P. Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.250/- i/d to undergo R.I. for one month, but acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act. 2. In brief the prosecution case was that the accused was frequently visiting the house of Rameshbhai Ambaram Patel and also visiting his house in his absence to meet his wife Sonalben. On the day of incident, Rameshbhai had gone to attend his job in the morning. Thereafter, at about 5-30 p.m. one Mahesh Prabhudas Patel residing in his neighbour came there and took him to his house. On reaching home, Rameshbhai found that his wife was profusely bleeding and had died and the accused was lying near her in bleeding condition. CR.A/716/2001 3/7 JUDGMENT 3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Rameshbhai Ambaram, investigation was started. At the end of investigation charge sheet was laid in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. As the case was triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 389 of 2000. Learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Ahmedabad framed charge Exh. 2 against accused for offences 302-309 of the I.P. Code and u/s 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried and therefore the prosecution adduced evidence. 4. On completion of recording of evidence, the learned trial Judge explained to the accused the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. The accused in his further statement recorded u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 stated that false case is foisted upon him. 5. The learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution and relying on the evidence found the charge against accused as proved and convicted him for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P. Code and imposed the sentence as stated above, but acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant – convict has preferred this appeal. CR.A/716/2001 4/7 JUDGMENT 6. We have heard Mr. Yajuvendrasinh Vaghela for Mr. H.N. Jhala learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Mita Panchal, learned Addl. Public Prosecution for the respondent - State at length and in great detail. We have perused the impugned judgment and record and proceedings of the trial court. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Vaghela submitted that the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence and the learned trial Judge committed error in relying upon the evidence. Therefore, interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and the appeal is required to be be allowed. 8. Learned A.P.P. Ms. Panchal submitted that the the evidence clearly indicates that the appellant was involved in the offence and t he incriminating circumstances are not explained by him. Therefore the learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the appellant for the offence of murder and no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 9. It appears from the prosecution case that the accused was known to the complainant and he used to visit the complainant's house frequently and the complainant had doubts that the accused and his wife Sonalben had illicit relations. On the day of the incident, when the complainant was away one Maheshbhai, his neighbour came and took him to house, where he saw that his wife Sonalben had died and was bleeding in a room. He also saw that the CR.A/716/2001 5/7 JUDGMENT accused was also profusely bleeding lying beside Sonalben. Therefore, the complaint was lodged. 10. The evidence of complainant P.W. 1 Rameshbhai Ambaram Exh. 8 indicates that on the day of the incident at about 5-00 p.m. he was taken home by Maheshbhai and saw that his wife Sonalben was lying profusely bleeding in the room and the accused was lying beside her in bleeding condition. 11. The evidence of P.W. 5 Bhavanbhai Khodabhai Parmar Exh. 14 indicates that on receipt of information, he went to the place of incident and saw that the deceased was lying profusely bleeding. The witness also found the accused lying beside her. 12. The prosecution examined P.W. 7 Dr. Yogesh Mahendra Joshi at Exh. 27 to prove the injuries found on the person of the accused. According to the witness, three injuries were found on the accused, out of which, one injury was throat cut injury. The accused has not offered any explanation with regard to the injuries. 13. The evidence of P.W. 6 Dr. Kishanbhai Ramjibhai Exh. 26 indicates that the injuries found on the body of Sonalben were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, death of Sonalben was homicidal. 14. The evidence of witnesses indicates that the CR.A/716/2001 6/7 JUDGMENT accused was present in the room and the room was locked from inside. It also appears that blood stained weapon was found from the accused inside the room. No explanation in that regard has been offered by the accused. In view of the fact that the accused who was not a family member, was found with injury inside the room with a lady with injury in absence of her husband, inference could be drawn that the accused was the author of the injuries more particularly when no explanation is offered. It also appears that after inflicting injuries to the deceased the accused tried to commit suicide but could not succeed in the attempt. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused. The learned advocate for the appellant has not been able to point out any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. 15. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction of present appellant rendered on 31-07-2001 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 389 of 2000 for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P. Code, is confirmed. The muddamal be disposed of as directed by the trial court. CR.A/716/2001 7/7 JUDGMENT (Bhagwati Prasad, J.) (Bankim N. Mehta, J.) /JVSatwara/