The court emphasized that witness credibility must be rigorously assessed, particularly in cases involving familial relationships and pre-existing enmity, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

P. M. RAVAL, J.

Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 2357 of 2006

1. The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant – Org. Accused against the judgment and order of conviction dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod in Sessions Case No. 86/2006, whereby the Ld. Sessions Judge has convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, and has sentenced him to life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default thereof, 6 months rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default thereof, one month rigorous imprisonment.

2. Facts shorn of unnecessary details, as they appears from the record are as follows:-

2.1 That on or about 6:00 PM on March 14, 2003, Kanubhai Nagjibhai Mavi (stepbrother of the Appellant herein) was assaulted by several persons who were armed with deadly weapons. Said assault took place inside the house of the deceased Kanubhai. The Accused forcibly entered the house of the deceased Kanubhai. The Accused broke the doors and roof and also damaged his motorcycle. Kanubhai ran away from his house wearing a saree and was again assaulted near a pond, where he was killed.

2.2 Prior to the murder of the said Kanubhai, Lalit was killed, who happened to be the real brother of Kanubhai and stepbrother of the Appellant herein. The children of Khetliben were the accused in that murder case, and the witnesses were Kanubhai and his family members. To take revenge, Kanubhai was killed by the children of Khetliben in a premeditated plan on March 14, 2003. Therefore, the First Information Report was recorded in Dahod Rural Police Station as CR No. I – 31 of 2003. At the relevant time, three accused were arrested, namely Sundar Sadevan, Rajesh Hathising, and Savita Sadevan. A chargesheet was filed, and the said accused were tried in Sessions Case No. 221 of 2004. The said Sessions Case was tried by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, predecessor in office, and by the judgment and order dated 09.11.2004, the accused were given the benefit of doubt.

2.3 The chargesheet earlier filed against the aforesaid three accused in Column No. 2 showed the names of the accused as “not arrested” and “absconders.” The present Appellant was arrested on 12.06.2006, and therefore, a supplementary chargesheet has been filed against the Appellant. Still, Vijay Hathising, Asian Hathising, Sanuben Hathising, and Sumitra Sadevan are not arrested and are absconders.

2.4 Initially, three accused persons were arrested namely (1)Sundarbhai Sahdevanbhai Mavi (2) Rajeshbhai Hathising Mavi and (3) Savitaben Wife of Sahdevanbhai Nagjibhai Mavi against whom, Sessions Case was conducted and were acquited vide judgment and order dated 09.11.2004, where the present Appellant namely Hathisingh was also accused but was absconding. The supplementary chargesheet came to be filed against the present Appellant since, he was arrested only on 13.03.2006 and Sessions Case No. 86/2006 came to be registered, wherein, vide Exh. 2 charges are framed on 24.07.2006 and vide Exh. 3 his plea came to be recorded, he denied the charged and prayed for Trial.

During the trial, the prosecution has relied upon the following documentary evidences:-