JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

1. This is an appeal by the appellant-convict, challenging the judgment and order, Dated: 28.02.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchamahal at Godhra, in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2012, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for the period of three months so also convicting him for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. However, while so ordering, the trial Court acquitted the two other co-accused.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under;

The original complainant-Samaratben Chhatrabhai Baria filed a complaint against the present appellant, wherein, it is stated that the complainant is the first wife of the deceased, Chhatrabhai and before about three years from the date of the alleged offence, the deceased, Chhatrabhai, got married with one Lalitaben, as per the customs of their caste, since, the complainant was unable to conceive.

2.1 Out of the second marriage, Lalitaben gave birth to a girl child. However, before about six days from the date of the alleged offence, the second wife of the deceased-Chhatrabhai, i.e. Lalitaben, had left her home and had gone to her parental home at Mudani-Kapdi, on account of quarrel between her and the deceased-Chhatrabhai.

2.2 It is, further, stated in the complaint that on 24.12.2011, at about 06:00 p.m., the cousin brother of the second wife-Lalita of the deceased-Chhatrabhai, i.e. the present appellant, came to the house of the deceased on a motorcycle. At that point of time, the aunt of the complainant, namely Buniben, was present there. After a brief conversation, the appellant and the deceased went into village on the motorcycle of the appellant and again came back home, after some time.

2.3 On returning home, the appellant told the deceased-Chhatrabhai that if, he would come with him, i.e. the appellant, he would resolve the dispute between Chhatrabhai and Lalitaben, i.e. his second wife. Initially, the deceased-Chhatrabhai refused to accompany the appellant. However, later on, on account of the persistent request on the part of the appellant, the deceased-Chhatrabhai agreed to accompany the appellant and in the late evening, at about 08:00 p.m., the deceased-Chhatrabhai left his home with the appellant on his motorcycle to go to village Muda-ni-Kapdi.

2.4 It is, further stated in the FIR that, since, the deceased-Chhatrabhai did not return home, even by the next day evening, a search was made at various places and thereafter, the original complainant went to Rajgadh Police Station and gave a written application with regard to missing of the deceased-Chhatrabhai.

2.5 Thereafter, it appears that police informed the original complainant that one witness, namely Laxman Baria, who had gone to forest to collect woods, had informed them that the dead-body of Chhatrabhai was lying near Dedka Dungar. Therefore, Rajgadh police registered the FIR under Sections 302, 201, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', hereinafter).

2.6 Upon registration of the FIR, police carried out the investigation and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet against the present appellant and two other persons before the Court of the learned Magistrate. However, since, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Sessions Case No. 100 of 2012.

2.7 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined following witnesses;