PRAVINBHAI DAMANBHAI TADVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the accused before Sessions Court, Vadodara, and was tried for offence of murder. He came to be convicted by judgement and order dated 16.05.2006 for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rupees One Thousand, in default, imprisonment for fifteen days. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 , and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is this judgement in Sessions Case No.286 of 2005 dated 16.05.2006 by Sessions Court, Vadodara, which is under challenge.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant had eloped with Sonalben, sister of Kalpeshbhai Bhailalbhai Tadvi, the first informant, about two months prior to 19.07.2005. However, the appellant and Sonalben were separated by intervention of the community people as per their customs. It is the case of the prosecution that keeping a grudge on this count, the appellant went to the house of the first informant- Kalpeshbhai Bhailalbhai Tadvi in the night of 18.07.2005, where several persons were sleeping outside the houses, including the first informant, and one Dilipbhai Ambubhai Tadvi. The first informant and Dilipbhai Ambubhai Tadvi were sleeping on otla of a house. When the appellant went there with a knife and inflicted four blows on abdominal portion of the deceased, it resulted in his death. A First Information Report was lodged with Sankheda Police Station by Kalpeshbhai Bhailalbhai Tadvi, and the offence was registered and investigated. After investigation, the police having found sufficient material, filed charge sheet in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sankheda, which in turn committed the case to the court of Sessions at Vadodara, and Sessions Case No.286 of 2005 came to be registered. Charge was framed against the accused at Exh.4 to which he pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. The trial court found that the prosecution was able to prove the case by adducing proper evidence and recorded conviction, as stated hereinabove, and hence this appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned advocate Mr. Harnish V. Darji for the appellant and learned A.P.P. Mr. R.C. Kodekar for the respondent-State.