A conviction for murder and robbery can be upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. B. MAYANI)

1. By way of present appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, the appellants-accused of have challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, in Sessions Case No.40 of 2012. The said case was registered against the appellants–accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 201, 510, 460 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act . By the impugned judgment and order the appellants are convicted under Section 302 of the and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25000/- is imposed, in default which further imprisonment of three months is order. The appellants are also convicted under Section 460 read with Section 34 of the and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25000/- is imposed in default of which further imprisonment of three months is ordered.

2. According to the prosecution case, one Bachubhai Ranchhodbhai Padmani, resident of Moti Khilori, Talauka : Gondal, lodged complaint on 23.2.2012. He alleged that yesterday i.e. on 22.2.2012 at about 4:30 p.m. he went to the Village : Vasavad for social function i.e. engagement of daughter of his brother-in-law Karshanbhai Dudabhai and on that night he stayed there. On the next day morning he went to Gondal with his brother-in-law and other persons and thereafter taking lunch he went to his village, at that time, Bhimjibhai Ranchhodbhai was accompanying him who is residing near his house. The complainant reached to his house at about 4:30 p.m. on 23.2.2012. He knocked the door of his house for about half an hour but his wife did not opened the door and, therefore, Jayrambhai with the help of wooden stairs saw inside the house and found his wife lying with blood and all the cupboards were opened. Thereafter he opened the main gate and with other persons he entered inside the house and saw his wife was dead and robbery of ornaments and cash amount had taken place in his house. The accused persons were residing at his field since last one and half months as labourers, who went away and, therefore, the complainant had suspicion towards the accused for the murder of his wife and the robbery.

3. In this regard the complainant lodged FIR with Gondal Police Station which is registered vide CR No.I-29 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 135 of the Gujarat Police Station.

4. During the course of investigation the accused persons were arrested with the ornaments robbed in its original form. The minor child, Priyanka was the eyewitness. The investigation agency has drawn different panchnamas regarding the discovery of weapon and clothes, scene of offence etc. Thereafter charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.

5. The learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence and convicted the above mentioned two accused persons for the offences mentioned above and, therefore, the convicts have filed present appeal.

6. Heard Mr. Hardik K. Raval, learned advocate for the appellants-accused and Mr. K. P. Rawal, learned APP for the respondent –State.

7. Mr. Hardik K. Raval, learned advocate for the appellants-accused has mainly submitted that learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in a true manner. The case of the prosecution mainly depends upon the evidence of so called eyewitness, Priyanka Khodabhai Bandhaniya and other circumstances regarding the recovery of ornaments of deceased from the accused persons. The discovery of weapon and jacket of accused No.1 at the instanc