IMPORTANT POINT
Eyewitness testimony from related witnesses can be deemed credible and sufficient for conviction, even in the absence of independent corroboration, provided their accounts are consistent and reliable.

JUDGMENT :

(ILESH J. VORA, J.)

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – original accused no. 1 under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (old) (‘Cr.P.C.’, in short) against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha- Palanpur in Sessions Case no. 3 of 2013, wherein, the appellant came to be tried for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short).

2. At the end of the trial, the appellant came to be convicted under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment of fifteen days.

3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the present appeal are in nutshell as under:

3.1 The appellant Dilipsinh Thakore – accused no.1 in this appeal has challenged his conviction and sentence for the murder of Naranji Chauhan, resident of Village Moti Bamodra, Tal.: Danta, Dist.: Palanpur.

3.2 According to the prosecution version, on 02.11.2012, at about 01:00 p.m., deceased Naranji Chauhan was restrained by the appellant accused, and inflicted sword blows on the body of the deceased, as a result of which, deceased collapsed and died on the spot. The motive behind the killing of the deceased was, to the effect that, the appellant accused did not like the conduct of the deceased who used to pass through his house. So far as accused no.2 Babuji Thakore is concerned, it was alleged that he being a companion of the appellant accused had instigated him to kill the deceased.

3.3 The appellant accused surrendered himself before the Hadad Police Station. The PSO of Hadad Police Station informed P.I. Mahendra Parmar (PW:11) about the incident and facts of appellant accused who surrendered before him. The P.I. Mahendra Parmar (PW:11) went at the place of incident. The mother of the deceased Reviben Talaji (PW:1) disclosed her complaint before the P.I. Mahendra Parmar. After registration of the offence, the investigation was handed over to P.I. Mahendra Parmar, who had arrested the appellant accused and co-accused Babuji Thakore and seized and recovered the weapons sword allegedly used in the offence. The dead body of the deceased sent for postmortem and according to evidence of the doctor PW:8, the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to cut of major veins and multiple major injuries found on the body of the deceased. The investigating officer Mr.Parmar drew the panchnama of scene of offence and collected necessary samples for examination by the FSL and recorded the statements of material witnesses and at the end of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Palanpur.

4. On the basis of material on record, the charge was framed against the appellant at Exh. 6, to which he pleaded not guilty and therefore, he came to be tried by the trial Court, accordingly.

5. In order to prove the case against the appellant, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents to prove its case as per the following table:

Oral evidence

Documentary evidence