J. C. UPADHYAYA, JJ.

( 1 ) THE challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bhavnagar on 24. 09. 2003 in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2002, whereby the appellant, who was original accused in the said case came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and the appellant accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, S. I for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and S. I for four months and fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. He has challenged the impugned order recording his conviction and sentence by preferring this appeal.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case in nutshell is that deceased Haribharthi Lalbharthi was serving as watchman at Crematorium, sitauted in Mahuva town of District Bhavnagar. On 5. 11. 2001, deceased Haribharthi and his son Nitinbharthi (PW-3) came to Mahuva from their Village Logia and at about 12 in the noon, when they both were proceeding in the area called Vasitalav in Mahuva, at that time, the appellant met them and the appellant demanded some money from the deceased for consumption of liquor, to which deceased outright refused. The appellant thereupon abused the deceased. The deceased thereafter went towards the crematorium and his PW-3 Nitinbharthi departed from his deceased father, as the deceased had told his son Nitinbharthi to go to home. It is the case of the prosecution that Nitinbharthi while returning towards his home saw that the appellant was chasing his deceased father Haribharthi and he felt some doubt and, therefore, he also chased the appellant. When the deceased reached to the crematorium, the appellant initially inflicted blows with stone on the head of the deceased, and, thereafter, inflicted knife blows on the chest and other parts of body of the deceased. Nitinbharthi Haribharthi (PW-3) reported the incident to police and the FIR came to be registered. During the course of investigation, statements of material witnesses were recorded. Bloodstained clothes of the deceased and of the appellant were seized. At the instance of the appellant, weapon knife came to be recovered. After collecting required material for the purpose of lodgment of chargesheet, chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Mahuva. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned JMFC, Mahuva committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Bhavnagar, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 37 of 2002.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge framed charge at Exh. 4 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, to which the appellant did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. After the prosecution concluded its oral evidence, the learned trial Judge recorded the further statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. The appellant in his further statement denied generally all the incriminating circumstances put to him by the learned trial Judge and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case.

( 4 ) AFTER considering the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that though the prosecution case rests upon the testimony of sole eye-witness the first informant Nitinbharthi PW-3, examined at Exh. 15, his testimony is reliable, trustworthy and inspires confidence and is corroborated by other evidence adduced by the prosecution and ultimately recorded conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and awarded the sentence as herein

Click Here to Read the rest of this document