BANKIM N.MEHTA, J. - (1.)APPELLANT has preferred this appeal and challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Bharuch, Camp at Rajpipla, on 21st July, 2003, in Sessions Case No.108 of 2002, convicting him for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P. Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for one year for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P. Code and to undergo RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo RI for three months for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.)ACCORDING to the prosecution case, there were disputes between deceased Rameshbhai Bhimabhai Tadvi and his uncle Muljibhai Vechabhai with regard to the payment of amount in respect of their agricultural land. On that account, on 30th April, 2002, at about 13.30 hours, the accused gave axe blow on the neck of Rameshbhai. On account of the injury, Rameshbhai died.
On the basis of the FIR lodged by Somiben Rameshbhai before Garudeshwar Police Station, an offence was registered and investigation started. During the course of investigation, panchnama of scene of offence and discovery panchnama were drawn, statement of witnesses were recorded, dead body of Rameshbhai was sent for postmortem. At the end of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the I.P. Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court at Bharuch and it was registered as Sessions Case No.108 of 2002. The learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch, framed charge vide Exhibit-6 against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. At the end 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him. After hearing the learned APP and learned Advocate for the accused, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him as mentioned here-in-before. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

We have heard learned Advocate Ms. Sandhya D. Natani for the appellant and learned APP Mr. K.L. Pandya for the State at length and in great detail. We have also perused the record and proceedings of the Trial Court.

(3.)LEARNED Advocate Ms. Sandhya Natani, , for the appellant submitted that on account of grave and sudden provocation, the incident ensued and, therefore, there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit murder and, hence, the Trial Court committed error in convicting the appellant for the offence of murder.
Learned APP Mr. Pandya submitted that the manner in which the incident has occurred, clearly indicates that the deceased was attacked with pre-determined mind and fatal injuries were caused. There is no evidence to indicate that there was grave and sudden provocation or quarrel between the deceased and the accused. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was justified in recording conviction for murder and no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence.