IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 861 of 2007 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
4 interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================= HIMTHABHAI MUDJIBHAI DUBHIL Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT Opponent(s) ========================================= Appearance :
MR RS PANJWANI for the Appellant MR KP RAVAL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent ==========================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 11/10/2012 CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. This appeal is at the instance of a convict accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and is directed against an order of conviction and sentence dated 5th May, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.8, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No.193/2006. By the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for 5 days.
2. Case of the Prosecution :
The deceased happened to be the full brother of the accused. The deceased had some dispute with his brother, the accused, regarding a piece of land. The complainant, namely, one Fekariben, wife of the deceased, was residing at village Kumbetha, Mohadiya Faliya, Ta: Nasvadi, Dist: Vadodara with her family comprising of her husband, the deceased, and a son, named, Teliyabhai, aged 15. On 19th June, 2006 at about 1 O’clock in the afternoon, the deceased had gone from her house to the village. When the complainant came to draw water at about 4 O’clock in the afternoon at the well of the accused, the complainant saw that her husband, the deceased, was sleeping near the house of the accused. The complainant, without waking up her husband, the deceased, fetched water from the well, and returned to her house. At around 5 O’clock in the evening, the accused came near the house of the deceased with an axe in his hand, and had appeared to be very angry and in a foul mood. On seeing the accused with an axe in his hand, and in an infuriated mood, the wife of the deceased, i.e. the complainant, and her son Teliya got frightened. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter, the accused proceeded towards his house, and the complainant and her son followed the accused. The accused found the deceased sleeping near his house, and without uttering a single word, inflicted injuries on the neck of the deceased with an axe. On witnessing the assault, the complainant and her son Teliya started raising shouts, and on hearing the shouts, the wife of the accused, named, Ramkaben came running at the spot. It is also the case of the prosecution that at that point of time, the accused murmuring some words, ran after his wife, as a result of which, the complainant, her son, and the wife of the accused, named, Ramkaben, all together ran away in the interior of the village. After sometime, the complainant returned at the place of the assault, and saw that her husband, the deceased was lying dead in a pool of blood. The wife of the deceased started crying, and on hearing the wife of the deceased crying, other people residing in the neighbourhood also gathered at the place of occurrence.
3. The wife of the deceased lodged a First Information Report on 20th June, 2006 at around 1.45, at Nasvadi Police Station. On the strength of the first information report being Exh.31, Police commenced investigation. The inquest Panchnama of the dead body of the deceased was drawn in presence of two panch witnesses, being Exh.32. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the Nasvadi Hospital for postmortem. The postmortem examination revealed that the deceased had sustained a chopped wound, admeasuring 10cms long, on the right side of the neck. The right jugular vein, the carotid artery and the trachea were found crushed/chopped. The cause of death assigned was cardio respiratory arrest as a result of severe loss of blood. The scene of offence Panchnama being Exh.25, was drawn. On the basis of the information, the accused was arrested and the arrest Panchnama of the accused, being Exh.16, was drawn in the presence of the Panch witnesses. On the strength of a statement being made by the accused, the weapon of offence i.e. the axe, was discovered from the house of the accused, and a discovery Panchnama was drawn in the presence of two panch witnesses, being Exh.17. The muddamal articles, which were collected by the investigating agency, after being sealed, were sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As there was sufficient evidence collected against the accused during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, finally filed chargesheet against the accused for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sankheda.
4. . As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sankheda committed the case to the Sessions Court, under Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Court framed charge against the accused, being Exh.6, and the statement of the accused was recorded. The accused did not admit the charge and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution adduced the following oral evidence in support of it's case.
P.W.1 Fekariben Musabhai Dungara Vasava Exh.10 Original complainant and the wife of the deceased.
P.W.2 Teilya Musabhai Vasava, Exh.11 Son of the deceased and eyewitness.
P.W.3 Biljibhai Paliyabhai Dungara Bhil, Exh.12, Witness.
P.W.4 Ramkaben Himtabhai DungaraBhil, Exh.13, wife of the accused.
P.W.5 Lashkarbhai Paliyabhai Dungara Bhil,Exh.14, Panch witness.
P.W.6 Nokabhai Bhaglabhai Dungara Bhil, Exh.15, Panch witness.
P.W.7 Gamiyabhai Duljibhai Dungara Bhil, Exh.18.
P.W.8 Dr.Jagdish Tundilraman Yelapalli, Exh.19 The doctor who performed the postmortem.
P.W.9. Barakhiyabhai Piniyabhai Dungara Bhil, Exh.21.
P.W.10 Chimabhai Muljibhai Dungara Bhil, Exh.22, Witness.
P.W.11 Vestabhai Remabhai Dungara Bhil, Exh.23, Witness.
P.W.12 Gordhanbhai Rajibhai Dungara Bhil, Exh.24, Panch witness.
P.W.13 Vikramsinh Fatesinh Sharma, Exh.26, Police witness.
P.W.14 SureshDipchand Devri, Exh.28.
P.W.15 Vitthalbhai Bhaijibhai Tadvi, Exh.29, Panch witness.
P.W.16 Bapubhai Motiram Chaudhari, Exh.30, The Investigating Officer.
The following pieces of documentary evidence were adduced by the prosecution.
1) Arrest Panchnama of the accused, Exh.16,
2) The discovery Panchnama of the weapon of the offence, Exh.17,
3) Postmortem Report, Exh.20,
4) Scene of offence Panchnama, Exh.25,
5) Panchnama of the clothes of the deceased, Exh.27,
6) Original complaint, Exh.31,
7) Inquest Panchnama, Exh.32,
8) F.S.L. Report, Exh.34,
6. After completion of oral as well as documentary evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code was recorded, in which the accused stated that the complaint was a false one and he was innocent. The defence of the accused was that on the date of the incident, he had gone to his agricultural field along with his wife, and at that point of time, the accused learnt that his brother, the deceased had died. Accordingly, the accused reached the house of the deceased and saw that the wife of the deceased, named, Fekariben was crying. Thereafter few leading persons of the village were informed about the incident.
7. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge convicted the accused for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him as stated herein before.
8. Being dissatisfied, the accusedappellant has come up with the this Appeal.
9. Contentions on behalf of the accusedappellant:
i) Mr. R.S.Panjwani, the learned Counsel appearing for the accusedappellant, vehemently submitted that the trial Court committed a serious error in holding the accused guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by relying on the evidence of the P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, and the P.W.2, the son of the deceased. According to Mr.Panjwani, neither the wife of the deceased, nor the son of the deceased, could be said to have witnessed the incident and both these witnesses could not be termed as wholly reliable witnesses. Mr.Panjwani also submitted that even the medical evidence on record fails to support the case of the prosecution, in so far as the time of the incident is concerned. Mr.Panjwani also submitted that the prosecution failed in proving the contents of the Panchnamas, including the Discovery Panchnama of the weapon of the offence, as, practically all the witnesses turned hostile. Mr.Panjwani submitted that there is evidence on record to suggest that the accused was very much present along with others at the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying, and on the contrary, the accused was one of the persons, who had helped in placing the body of the deceased in a car for being taken to the hospital. The conduct of the accused itself suggests that he had not committed the crime, as no person after committing such a gruesome murder would remain at the place of the occurrence and participate in other proceedings. Thus, according to Mr.Panjwani, there is no evidence worth the name to connect the accused with the crime, and only on suspicion the Trial Judge could not have convicted the accused.
10. Contentions on behalf of the State:
Mr. K.P. Raval, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, vehemently submitted that the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, by relying on the evidence of the wife of the deceased, and the son of the deceased. According to Mr.Raval, there was no reason for the wife of the deceased as well as for the son of the deceased to falsely implicate the accused, who happens to be the brother of the deceased. Mr. Raval, therefore, urged that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be confirmed.
11. Oral Evidence on Record :
i) Having gone through the oral evidence on the record, we have noticed that out of sixteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, excluding the three Police Witnesses, the Doctor, the original complainant, wife of the deceased and the son of the deceased, all other witnesses failed to support the case of the prosecution and were accordingly, declared as hostile witnesses. Thus, before the trial Court, there was evidence of the P.W.1, wife of the deceased, the P.W.2, son of the deceased, the P.W.8, the Doctor who performed the postmortem and the P.W.13, P.W.14 and the P.W.16, the police witnesses, for determining the guilt of the accused.
ii) The P.W.1, Fekariben Musabhai Dungara Vasava is the wife of the deceased. The P.W.1, in her evidence, being Exh.10, stated that on the date of the incident at around 4 O’clock in the afternoon, her husband, the deceased, was sleeping near the house of the accused. The P.W.1 deposed that her house, and the house of the accused were next to each other. The P.W.1 deposed that the accused, with an axe, came at the place, where the deceased was sleeping, and without uttering a single word, inflicted injuries with the axe on the neck of the deceased. The P.W.1 deposed that she witnessed the incident along with her son, the P.W.2, Teliya. According to the P.W.1, after witnessing the assault on her husband, the deceased, she raised cries for help and on hearing the cries, the other people residing in the locality came running at the spot of the occurrence. The P.W.1 further deposed that one Biljibhai also came at the place of occurrence along with one Kurasiya. According to the P.W.1, thereafter, Biljibhai and Kurasiya both went to the house of the Sarpanch, named, Barakhiya, to inform about the incident. After some time, the Sarpanch Barakhiya also came at the place of the occurrence. The dead body of her husband was thereafter, taken to a dispensary. In the night hours, the police interrogated the P.W.1 and thereafter, the first information report was registered. The P.W.1 also identified the axe which was shown to her during the course of her deposition, and identified the axe to be the same axe with which the accused had inflicted injuries on her husband, the deceased. The P.W.1, in her crossexamination, stated that it was true that when the P.W.1 returned home from her agricultural field, the P.W.1 found the dead body of the deceased, and the axe lying at the place of the occurrence. In her crossexamination, the P.W.1, further deposed that on seeing the dead body of her husband, she raised shouts. On hearing the shouts, one Biljibhai came at the place of occurrence. The P.W.1 also deposed that it was true that at that point of time, she had informed Biljibhai, that Musabhai, her husband had died, and no other fact was informed to Biljibhai. The P.W.1 also deposed that it was true that when she returned from her agricultural field, her son Teliya was also along with her, and her son Teliya also saw the dead body of the deceased, at that point of time. She further deposed that it was true that Biljibhai had told Vestabhai and others, who had assembled at the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying, that they all should go to the Police Station and inform about the incident. She further deposed that it was true that thereafter, Biljibhai, Vestabhai and Barakhiyabhai went to Nasvadi along with the dead body of the deceased and at that point of time, the accused also accompanied Biljibhai, Vestabhai and Barakhiya. The P.W.1 has further deposed that it was true that Barakhiyabhai, Vestabhai, Biljibhai and Himtabhai, the accused, all together helped each other in putting the dead body of the deceased in a car.
(iii) On overall reappreciation of the entire evidence of the P.W.1, it is manifest that the P.W.1 had not witnessed the assault, but as a matter of fact, on P.W.1’s own saying, when she returned from her agricultural field, she saw that her husband, the deceased was lying dead in a pool of blood, and one axe was also lying nearby the dead body of her husband, the deceased. It is only thereafter that she raised shouts for help and on hearing the shouts, one Biljibhai came at the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying. It is also very clear that all that was stated by the P.W.1 before Biljibhai was that Musabhai, her husband had died and nothing else was conveyed to Biljibhai. If the P.W.1 had actually witnessed the accused inflicting injuries on the neck of her husband, the deceased, then this fact would have surely been conveyed by P.W.1 to Biljibhai. Apart from this, the presence of the accused all throughout at the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying, itself suggests that the P.W.1 had not witnessed the accused inflicting injuries on her husband, the deceased. On the contrary, the P.W.1 has deposed in so many words that the accused was also there along with Barakhiya, Vestabhai and Biljibhai at the time when the dead body of her husband, the deceased, was being put in a car for being taken to the Nasvadi Hospital. We have no doubt in our mind that the P.W.1 Fekariben is not an eyewitness to the incident and no reliance could be placed on the evidence of such a witness.
iv) The P.W.2 Teliya Musa, is the son of the deceased. The P.W.2 was examined by the prosecution as an eyewitness to the incident. The trial Court found the P.W.2 to be a competent child witness, and recorded his evidence after being administered oath. The P.W.2 also claimed to have had witnessed the assault by the accused on his father, the deceased with an axe. We do not find any difficulty in discarding the evidence of the P.W.2 also as it is evident from the evidence of the P.W.2 that he was in the company of her mother i.e. the P.W.1. This fact is also admitted by the P.W.1 in her deposition. The P.W.2, in his crossexamination has deposed that it was true that at the time the incident occurred, he along with his mother were returning home from their agricultural field. No reliance could be placed on the evidence of the P.W.2, as the P.W.2 could not be termed as an eyewitness to the incident.
v) As stated above, all the other witnesses turned hostile and, therefore, none of the Panchnamas could also be proved by the prosecution which includes the discovery Panchnama of the weapon, i.e. axe. Even otherwise, no credence could be lend to the circumstance of the discovery of the weapon from the house of the accused, as suggested by the prosecution, because, according to the P.W.1 and the P.W.2, the axe was lying at the place very much near to the dead body of the deceased. Although the P.W.3, Biljibhai Bhil has been declared as a hostile witness, his evidence to a certain extent is important to disbelieve the evidence of the P.W.1 and the P.W.2. The P.W.3 Biljibhai, in his evidence has deposed that when he returned home at around 4 O’clock in the evening from Nasvadi, he heard someone crying near the house of the deceased. On hearing the cries, the P.W.3 proceeded towards the house of the deceased and saw that the deceased had died. The P.W.3 also deposed that thereafter, he himself, along with one Kurasiya, went to the house of the Sarpanch, to inform about the incident. The P.W.3 also deposed that when he had reached near the house of the deceased, he had met the wife of the deceased, and at that point of time, nothing was conveyed by the wife of the deceased to the P.W.3. This part of the evidence of the P.W.3 is corroborated even by the evidence of the P.W.1. The fact that nothing was conveyed by the P.W.1 to Biljibhai, itself is suggestive of the fact that the P.W.1 had no idea as to who had inflicted injuries on the neck of her husband, the deceased.
vi) The P.W.8, Dr.Jagdish Tundilram Yelapalli is the doctor. The P.W. 8 performed the postmortem. The P.W.8, in his evidence, being Exh.19, deposed that the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased revealed the following injuries :
1. Chopped wound extending from the right and muscle joint to above right sternocleidomastoid 10 cm long, cut injury on right side of neck.
2. Bleeding below right mandible 7 cm long cut injury on right side of neck.
3. Right sternocleidomastoid, Right external jugular vain, Right common carolid artery, traches, crushed/cut (chopped).
12. The P.W.8, in his evidence also deposed that no food, digested or semidigested, was found in the small intestine. Nothing was found even in the stomach or even in the large intestine. The doctor in his deposition stated that taking into consideration the fact that no digested or semidigested food was found in the stomach, or in the intestine, would suggest that death must have occurred on the previous day in the morning hours after evacuation but before eating any food thereafter. The evidence of the P.W.8 also assumes some significance. If it is the case of the prosecution that the incident occurred at around 4 O’clock in the evening, then in that case it leads one to draw an inference that after excretion in the morning, the deceased must not have eaten a morsel of food till the time of his death, which appears to be a bit unpalatable. Thus, the ocular account pertaining to the time of incident and the manner of assault, could not be said to have been supported by the medical evidence.
13. In the overall view of the matter, we find that this is a case of no evidence. It appears that only on suspicion, the accused was implicated in the crime. There is no evidence worth the name on record to connect the accused with the crime. We are not convinced even with the motive put forward by the prosecution for commission of the crime.
14. Under the circumstances, we are left with no other option, but to hold that the trial Court committed an error in relying on the evidence of the P.W.1 and the P.W.2 for basing conviction of the accused for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
15. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are hereby set aside. The accused is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, C.J.] shekhar* [J.B.PARDIWALA, J.]