CR.A/72720/2002 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 727 of 2002 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. ========================================================= VINODBHAI PRABHATSINH CHAVDA - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : 1,MR US BRAHMBHATT for Appellant MS MITA S PANCHAL APP for Respondent – State. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 18/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA) CR.A/72720/2002 2/6 JUDGMENT 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 and sentence passed on 30-08-2002 by Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.29 of 2002 for offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P. Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. In brief the prosecution case was that on 1-10-2001 at about 9-00 p.m. Vinodbhai Prabhatsinh Chavda armed with 'dhariya' and other accused armed with other weapons assaulted Bhagwansinh Somsinh Chavda and inflicted injuries to him. On account of such injuries, Bhagwansinh Somsinh Chavda died. 3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Sharmisthaben Bhagwansinh offence was registered and investigation was started. At the end of investigation charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 302, 504, 34 and 114 of the I.P. Code. As the case was triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Vadodara and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 29 of 2002. CR.A/72720/2002 3/6 JUDGMENT Learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara framed charge Exh. 3 against accused for the aforesaid offences. 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 them 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 them. 5. After hearing learned A.P.P. and learned advocate for the accused the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P. Code but acquitted other accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant – convict has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. U.S. Brahmabhatt, 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. CR.A/72720/2002 4/6 JUDGMENT 7. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmabhatt submitted that on account of disputes between the parties, appellant has been falsely implicated in the offence. It is also submitted that there is no direct evidence to connect the appellant in the offence. Therefore, the learned trial Judge committed error in convicting the appellant for the offence of murder. Hence, interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and the appeal is required to be allowed. 8. Learned A.P.P. Ms. Panchal submitted that the eye witnesses have deposed about role played by the appellant – convict in commission of the offence. 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. The evidence of P.W. 2 Sharmisthaben Bhagwansinh Exh. 13 indicates that at the time of incident, she and her mother-in-law were sitting on 'otala' and deceased Bhagwansinh was inside the house. It also indicates that accused Vinodbhai Prabhatsinh armed with 'dhariya' came and inflicted two 'dhariya' blows on the back side of head and one blow on the face of deceased Bhagwansinh. It also indicates that she was at distance of about CR.A/72720/2002 5/6 JUDGMENT seven feet from Bhagwansinh and she raised shouts to save her husband. 10. The evidence of P.W. 3 Galaben Somsinh Exh.23 indicates that she was also present at the time of incident and saw the appellant – convict inflicting the injuries to the deceased with 'dhariya'. 11. In view of above evidence, it appears that the deceased was attacked by the accused with 'dhariya' without any provocation. The manner in which the assault was made, it appears that the accused had intention to cause death. 12. The evidence of P.W. 1 Dr. Amarnath Sitanath Gupta Exh. 9 indicates that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were possible by sharp cutting weapon. Postmortem Report Exh. 11 also indicates the external injuries found on the body of the deceased. Therefore, death was homicidal. 13. First Information Report Exh. 14 indicates that appellant – convict attacked the deceased with 'dhariya' and caused fatal injuries to him. 13. In view of above, the evidence of P.W. 2 and CR.A/72720/2002 6/6 JUDGMENT P.W. 3 is consistent. The defence has not been able to point out any discrepancy in their evidence. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the appellant – convict for the offence of murder. Hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the present Criminal Appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara on 30-08-2002 in Sessions Case No. 29 of 2002 convicting and sentencing the appellant 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. (Bhagwati Prasad, J.) (Bankim N. Mehta, J.) /JVSatwara/