;
Dineshbhai Bhailalbhai Vasava, by this appeal from jail, has challenged the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 15-4-1996, rendered in Sessions Case No. 30/95, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, wherein he on his coming to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under sections 302 and 324 of IPC, was at the end of the trial ordered to be convicted for the same and sentenced to undergo sentence of life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to further undergo SI for one month etc.
2.The prosecution case as it gets briefly reflected in the Charge Ex-3 is to the effect that the incident in question wherein Manjula was stabbed to death took place on 26-9-1994 at 17-45 hours near the Bus Station of village Pathugan, wherein the accused Dinesh gave 11 knife blows on various part of bodies of the deceased Manjula, as a result of which she succumbed to the injuries. This incident was eye-witnessed by two witnesses viz. PW-1 Narmadaben Ramanbhai and PW-3 Ibrahim Umarji. Out of these two witnesses, the complaint came to be filed by PW-1 Narmadaben before Bharuch Rural Police Station. On the basis of this information, the accused came to be arrested from his house and was immediately forwarded to PW-13 Dr.Vinaychandra L. Patel, who on examining him found self-inflicted wounds on his abdomen, that is what he disclosed before the Doctor. On the basis of this information, after the investigation was over, the accused came to be chargesheeted for the aforesaid alleged offences to stand trial before the Sessions Court at Bharuch .
3.At trial, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It was his case that he has not committed any offence and that he was stabbed by the husband of the deceased- Manjula. The trial court accepting the prosecution evidence consisting of two eye witnesses PW-1 and PW-3 as corroborated by the medical evidence that of PW-12 Dr.Vyomeshchandra Gohil, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in detail in above para-1 of this judgment, giving rise to this appeal.
4.This being an appointed matter, we had at the very outset, inquired from Mr.A.R.Thakkar, the learned advocate whether he has gone through the R&P . On we being satisfied that Mr.Thakkar has made exhaustive use of the same, we have permitted him to argue. According to Mr.Thakkar, the patent infirmity which surfaces in the appreciation of evidence made by the learned trial judge is that there is no motive, and in this view of the matter, the trial court committed a patent error in accepting and relying upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Mr.Thakkar further submitted that PW-3 Ibrahim can not be said to be an eye witness and therefore the trial court ought not to have placed reliance upon it. Despite the fact, as per the evidence of PW-1 Narmadaben, though there were other independent witnesses present, they were not examined. This also creates doubt about the prosecution story. There is no substance worth the name in any of the aforesaid submissions made by Mr.Thakkar. The fact remains that immediately after the incident, the complaint was filed before the police. Not only that, but the accused was arrested from his house. There are as many as 11 injuries on the person of the deceased Manjula. The presence of PW-1 Narmadaben is established beyond any doubt in view of the injuries received by her while attempting to snatch away the knife from the hand of the accused. Taking into consideration the evidence of two eye witnesses as corroborated by the medical evidence brought on the evidence, we have no hesitation in placing a seal of approval on the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court. In this view of the matter, there is nothing on the basis of which it can remotely be even stated that the matter deserves to be admitted.
4.In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed summarily.