RAIJIBHAI MERUBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2014-2-181
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on February 17,2014

Raijibhai Merubhai Parmar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Jayant M. Patel, J. - (1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the leaned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2009, whereby all the accused have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 114 of I.P.C. and sentence imposed is of life -imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 500/ - upon each of the accused with the further one month S.I., for default in payment of fine. The short facts of the case are that on 15 -12 -2007 a complaint came to be registered with Dakor Police Station by Chandrasinh Chhatrasinh Rathod (P.W. 1) (Exh. 10), stating that his brother Narvatsinh had to collect an amount of Rs. 1,400/ - towards unpaid consideration for the sale of buffaloes from Raijibhai Merubhai Parmar (A -1). On 14 -12 -2007 at about 6 -00 O'clock, when he was at his residence and Narvatsinh (deceased) had gone to the agricultural field for irrigation to the crop of wheat, he had also gone to A -1 for demanding money of Rs. 1,400/ -. At that time, at about 8 -00 O'clock, Kalusinh @ Khodsinh Bharatsinh Parmar (P.W. 4) came at his residence and informed that his brother Narvatsinh was being beaten by some persons. Therefore, his younger brother's wife, Janakben Hathisinh Rathod (P.W. 3) (Exh. 15) had reached the field immediately and thereafter he went with his son Ashokbhai and brother Hathisinh and other persons. His younger brother's wife Janakben informed him that Raijibhai Merubhai Parmar (A -1), his son Nakulbhai (A -2), Champaben, wife of Raijibhai Merubhai Parmar (A -3) and Meenaben, wife of Nakul (A -4), by catching hold of the elder brother of her husband Narvatsinh, were beating him and A -1 was having stick and blow was given on the backside of the head of the deceased. As a result thereof, the deceased had fallen down and all the four persons are run away towards their residence. When the complainant reached, he found that his brother (deceased) was in the field and he had sustained injuries and there was bleeding and he found that he had expired. The complaint was registered at about 1 -45 a.m., on 15 -12 -2007. The police investigated into the matter and ultimately charge -sheet was filed against four accused. The case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Case No. 55 of 2009. The learned Sessions Judge frame the charge for the offence under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 114 of I.P.C. and for the offence under Sec. 135 of Bombay Police Act upon all the accused. The learned Sessions Judge conducted the trial.
(2.) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined 13 witnesses and produced 25 documentary evidences the details whereof are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned judgment. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, recorded the statements of all the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused denied the evidence against them. In the further statement, the accused stated that a false charge is made against them and false case is filed and they are innocent. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution and the defence and found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case for the charged offence against all the accused and convicted all the accused for offence under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 114 of I.P.C. as well as for the offence under Sec. 135 of Bombay Police Act. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter, heard the prosecution and the defence for sentence and ultimately imposed sentence as referred to hereinabove. Under these circumstances, all the original accused -appellants herein have preferred the present appeal before this Court. Mr. Toliya, learned Counsel appearing with Mr. Shirish Patel, learned Counsel for the original accused and Mr. Jani, learned A.P.P. for the State have taken us through the entire evidence on record. We have considered the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the accused -appellants as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.
(3.) THE evidence led by the prosecution can broadly be considered as stated hereinafter. However, such evidence will have to be considered and appreciated separately for A -1 and for A -2 to A -4 after we consider the aspect of applicability of Sec. 114 for the role played for facilitating abatement for commission of crime by A -2 to A -4.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.