JAYANTIBHAI SHANKERBHAI PATANWADIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was interalia sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default simple imprisonment for three months by impugned judgement and order dated 30.12.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2006 for the offence punishable under sections 302 & 309 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) A complaint was filed by the appellant-accused on 01.07.2006 stating that he was living at Gajera, Jambusar with his wife-deceased and two children. He has stated in the complaint that he had heard talks about his wife being in an illicit relation with one Ranjit Soma of their village. However, during the marriage ceremony of his nephew, the appellant- accused found his wife-deceased and said Ranjit Soma in a compromising position. He reprimanded them and said Ranjit went away. It is his say in the complaint that on the date of incident in question he had asked his wife to accompany him to their field to take care of Bajri crop. Therefore both of them went to the field where he confronted her with her relation with Ranjit Soma. She told him that she had no illicit relation with him but had got into a physical relation only once. Thereafter, she went to sleep on the roof top. It is the say of the accused in the complaint that at around 1200 at noon, the appellant-accused went to the roof top and inflicted four blows by means of the blunt edge of a spade on the head of his wife-deceased. He, however, repented and therefore jumped into the well situated in the nearby field to end his life but was saved as the well did not contain any water. He thereafter reached Jambusar Police Station and stated the entire facts and surrendered before the police.

(3.) MR . J.K. Shah, learned APP, however, submitted that the trial court has given cogent reasons for sustaining the conviction under section 302 & 309 of Indian Penal Code and this court may not interfere in this appeal. He stated that the trial court has based the conviction not only on the confessional statement but also considered entire circumstances of the case and the facts which are proved by cogent evidence. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of P.W. 4 who is the sister of the deceased and who has supported the contents of the FIR and the conduct of the accused.