MULCHAND @ KAMAL MEVARAM LODHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order dated 08.09.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 294 of 2005 whereby the appellant -convict has been convicted for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and is inter alia sentenced to life imprisonment and is ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default, simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE gist of the prosecution case is that on 24.01.2005, at around 04.00 am, the complainant was informed by his relative that he received a phone call from the matrimonial house of Jayaben (hereinafter referred to as "the victim/the deceased") informing that a quarrel had taken place between the victim and her husband - Kamal (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant -accused") and during the quarrel she sustained injuries. Hearing this, the complainant along with his mother and sister rushed out of house to find that another relative had come to his house with this information in an autorickshaw. The complainant therefore in the same autorickshaw went to the matrimonial house of the victim and saw that the body of victim was lying there. On further inquiry from the mother -in -law of victim, it was borne out that a quarrel had taken place between the victim and the appellant -accused at around 10.00 pm as the appellant accused carried a misconception that the victim was of loose character. She had mentioned that after they went to sleep at around 02.00 am again a quarrel took place between them and during the quarrel, the victim was hit by an iron hammer on her head and face by the appellant -accused as a result of which she sustained serious injuries. The victim had shouted for help due to which people gathered and took her to Vadilal Hospital from where she was shifted to Civil Hospital. The victim however succumbed to the injuries on reaching the hospital.

(3.) MS . Shubha Tripathi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant accused submitted that the trial court has not appreciated the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case in its true perspective which has ended in miscarriage of justice. She submitted that the trial court has erred in holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant.