AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bankim N. Mehta, J.—Appellant - convict has preferred this appeal u/s 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and challenged judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on 16-02-2001 by learned Third Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, camp : Anand in Sessions Case No. 329 of 1998 convicting him for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P Code and u/s 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
According to prosecution case, on 22-9-1998 at about 10-15 hours, deceased Bhargavi @ Pinki with her friend Amruta started to go to school. When they reached near the gate of Dakor Gaurakshak Panjarapole, the accused made assault on Bhargavi @ Pinki with sword and caused injuries on her head. On account of the injuries, Bhargavi @ Pinki died.
On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Manharkumr Shantilal, the father of the deceased, offence was registered and investigation was started. At the end of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P. Code and u/s 135 of the Bombay Police Act. As the offence was triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Camp : Anand and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 329 of 1998. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, framed charge Exh. 4 against the accused for the aforesaid offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore the prosecution adduced evidence.
On completion of recording of evidence, the learned trial Judge explained to the accused the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. The accused in his further statement recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stated that false case is filed against him.
After hearing the learned A.P.P. for the State and learned advocate for the accused, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the accused has preferred this appeal.
We have heard learned advocate Ms. Sadhna Sagar for appellant and learned A.P.P. Mr. Dipen A. Desai for the State - respondent at length and in great detail. We have perused the impugned judgment and record & proceedings of the trial court.
The evidence of eye witness P.W. 4 Amrutaben Kiritbhai Dave Exh. 11 indicates that on the date of incident the witness with deceased Bhargavi whose nick-name was Pinki, started to go to school. When they reached near post office, the accused came from their behind and made assault with sword on Bhargavi @ Pinki. This witness has been extensively cross-examined. However, the defence has not been able to elicit that the witness did not notice the assailant. This evidence clearly indicates involvement of the accused in the offence.
The evidence of P.W. 8 Dr. Vijaychandra Chandrakant Exh. 24 indicates that the injuries found on the dead body of Bhargavi @ Pinki were possible by sword and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
The postmortem report Exh. 26 indicates that there were about eight injuries on the dead body and the cause of death was, ''multiple injuries and head injuries leading to haemorrhagic shock and death.'' This medical evidence clearly indicates that Bhargavi @ Pinki died on account of the injuries.
In view of the above evidence, it emerges that when deceased Bhargavi @ Pinki was going to school with P.W. 4 Amrutaben Kiritbhai Dave Exh. 11 the accused attacked Bhargavi @ Pinki with sword and caused injuries on the vital part of the body and on account of the injuries Bhargavi @ Pinki died. The evidence clearly indicates complicity of the accused in the offence. The learned advocate for the appellant has not been able to point out any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, in our considered view the learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused for the offence of murder and no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and stands dismissed and judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on 16-02-2001 by learned Joint District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Camp : Anand in Sessions Case No. 329 of 1998, is confirmed.
The muddamal be disposed of as directed by the trial court.