The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence and hostile witness testimony negate conviction under Section 302 IPC.

ORDER :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2)of the Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalol, Panchmahal at Godhra in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2012, by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default thereof, further simple imprisonment of 1 month.

2. The case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellant Jitu Botha Dantani is as follows:

The accused appellant has killed his wife Chandrika causing her head injury with wooden log. The offence of murder came to be registered with Kalol Police Station being I. CR. No. 44 of 2012, under Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution case in brief is that, the appellant and his wife Chandrika had a matrimonial dispute and their relations were no cordial. The husband wife resided in a makes-ship house in the compound of Calico Mill at Kalol. On 24.04.2012, the dispute with regard to cooking of the milk arose between the husband-wife, as a result of which, the heated exchange of words and fights took place between them. The accused appellant on account of said dispute, lost his control and took the wooden log lying on the house and inflicted blow on the head of the deceased, which resulted into instantaneous her death. The incident of murder took place at about 10-00 pm. The brother of the deceased Lalubhai Dantani – PW-21, upon receiving the information about the death, rushed to the place of incident and lodged an FIR, inter-alia, alleging that the appellant had killed the deceased by wooden log. The appellant accused came to be arrested. The IO of the case PW-22 proceeded to investigate the case and during the course of investigation, at the instance of the accused recovered and seized the wooden log, prepared a panchnama of scene of offence, sent the body for the Postmortem, recorded the statements of the witnesses, sent the seized articles to the FSL and obtained the necessary examination reports from the FSL and thereafter, he found sufficient materials for the charge against the accused and accordingly, chargehsheet came to be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. The case was committed to the court of Sessions at Kalol, Panchmahal and same was culminated into Sessions Case No. 27 of 2012.

3. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kalol, framed the charges against the appellant.

4. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents.

Oral evidence

PW 22 – Exh.50 Rajesh Gopaldas Bh