DOLATSINH DEVISINH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 73/2006 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch, recording the conviction of the accused persons for offences under sec. 304 Part-I r/w sec. 114 of IPC, imposing the sentence of R.I for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, i/d S.I. for 2 months. The conviction has also been recorded for offence under sec 342 r/w sec. 114 of IPC, imposing sentence of S.I. for 2 months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly summarized, are as follows:

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. J.N. Patel appearing for learned advocate Mr Devendra Rathod referred to the charge at exh. 5 and also referred to the material and evidence and the testimony of the witnesses including the testimony of PW 1 to 7 who are panch witnesses who have been declared hostile. He also submitted that there are three eye witnesses, the complainant, Ganeshbhai Mangabhai, PW 10, exh. 31, Natvarbhai Nagjibhai Patanvadia, PW 11, exh. 33 and Maganbhai Gulabhai Vasava, brother of the deceased and uncle of the complaint, PW 14, exh. 40. Learned advocate Mr. Patel referred to the testimony of Ganeshbhai(complainant), PW 10 at exh. 31 and submitted that his testimony cannot be relied upon as he is an interested witness and his conduct is also not natural. He emphasised and submitted that when he saw the incident, the normal reaction would be that one would come to the rescue of the deceased and would have tried to save him. However, he has stated that he did not intervene. He referred to the FIR at exh. 31 and submitted that the version stated is different and therefore the presence of the complainant, PW 10, at the scene of offence is doubtful and his evidence is not reliable.