IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 768 of 2007 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================== ===============
========================================================= JETHALAL ALIAS BATUK ALIAS BATKO DHANJI KHAMBA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================== =============== Appearance :
MR H AHMED for Appellant.
MR KP RAWAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for respondent.
========================================== =============== Date : 13/07/2012 CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA)
1. This appeal is at the instance of a convict for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and is directed against an order of conviction and sentence dated 25th January 2007 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2000 by which the learned trial judge passed an order of rigourous imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs.5000/-; in default of payment of fine, it was stipulated, the appellant would undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. For the offence punishable under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant was directed to suffer a sentence of 4 month’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
2. Being dissatisfied, the convicted person has come up with the present appeal.
3. The case made out by the prosecution may be summed up thus:
3.1 On 15th October 1999, a lady Police Constable, viz. Savitaben Jamnadas Jogi, was in-charge as PSO of Veraval City Police Station, when at night at about 00.10 hours, on behalf of Veraval Government Hospital Medical Officer Doctor Shri Bubavat, his staff Mayavati sister had informed though telephonic message that a person named Laxmanbhai Menadbhai Vadher Mer, aged about 27 years, resident of Prabhas, Patan had been brought at 11.15 hours in a dead condition. Accordingly, PSO Jogi had made a note in the Station Diary and passed over the same to duty PSI, viz. B.G. Chavda, to make inquiry by going to the hospital and also informed the Executive Magistrate by issuing a DO Letter for making inquest panchnama of the dead body.
3.2 On the basis of such requisition, PSI Chavda went to Veraval Government Hospital where Hajabhai, the brother of the deceased Laxmanbhai, was present, and on asking him about the incident, he had made a complaint that the deceased Laxmanbhai happened to be his brother and on a day prior to the incident, a quarrel took place in connection with parking of a scooter and due to the said incident, a person named Jethalal @ Batuk @ Batko Dhanjibhai had committed murder of his brother by knife injury.
3.3 The case being a cognizable offence, the PSI, Chavda, had recorded the complaint as given by the brother of the deceased, which was read over and explained to him and had taken his signature as well as subscribed his signature and forwarded the same to PSO Veraval City Police Station along with a written report for registering the offence.
3.4 On the basis of such complaint, after registering the offence, vide C.R. No. I-192 of 1999 and making entry in the Station Diary, further investigation was handed was handed over to PSI Chavda by the PSO.
3.5 For the investigation, PSI Chavda had visited the place of the incident and recorded the panchnama as per the panch and in the presence of the panch. After making inquest panchnama of the dead body, the dead body was forwarded to medical officer for examination. The Investigating Officer also recorded statements of some witnesses.
3.6 On the same day, the accused, viz. Jethalal @ Batuk @ Batko Dhanjibhai was arrested by the Striking Force ASI S.K. Pandya and Head Constable D.B. Pithiya and after he was taken to the police station, the said accused had lodged a complaint before the on-duty PSO N.P. Jadeja that on 15th October 1999, during 22.30 hours to 23.00 hours, an altercation took place with a person named Laxman Menand in connection with touching of scooter and due to excitement he had quarreled with Laxmanbhai. The complaint being one for a non-cognizable offence, after registering the same in the NC register vide NC No. 137 of 199, the investigation was handed over to PSI Chavda because the accused in that case was the deceased person of C.R. No. I-192 of 1999.
3.7 The custody of the accused was handed over to PSI Chavda.
According to the Prosecution, on the accused being asked by PSI Chavda about the clothes worn by him at the time of offence, he had shown willingness to show the same, and after calling panch and making a preliminary panchanama of the same, they went to the place indicated by the accused, recovered the clothes worn by him at the time of offence and seized the same in the presence of panch. The muddamal articles like knife, clothes worn by the accused at the time offence, blood stained soil from the place of offence, chappal, slippers, blood sample from the dead body of the deceased and his clothes were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. PSI Chavda had also obtained the post mortem report of the dead body of the deceased.
3.8 The accused was produced before the Court and PSI Chavda had submitted charge sheet for offence punishable section 302 of Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act on 4th January 2000 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. Since the offence charged against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Sessions Court on 1st May 2000, vide order below Exh.1 under section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3.9 The learned Sessions Judge, on 10th April 2006 framed charge at Exh.9 against the accused for offences punishable under sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The translated version of the charge is quoted below:
“On 14.10.1999 at about 10.00 O'Clock at night, an altercation took place between you and Laxman, brother of the complainant in connection with parking of scooter before the pan shop near Bhadiya Naka and by keeping animosity in that respect, at any time before 23.30 hrs. on 15.10.1999, you, with an intention and knowledge to cause death of Laxman, caused grievous hurts by inflicting knife blows to him on the right side of his neck, below the banyan tree near Bhidiya Octroi Naka and Laxman - brother of the complainant had died on account of the said injuries and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code within the jurisdiction of this Court.
On the said date and place and during the said time, notification of the District Magistrate was in force and by keeping weapon like knife in your possession, you committed violation of the said notification and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
I therefore order that you accused be tried in connection with the aforesaid offence before this Court.
4. The accused pleaded “not guilty” to the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. At the time of hearing, the following pieces of documentary evidence were produced on behalf of the prosecution:-
6. The following pieces of oral evidence given by the witnesses were adduced on behalf of the prosecution:
7. The accused did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.
However, the learned trial Judge recorded statements of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As indicated earlier, the accused having declined to give any evidence of his own, the learned Sessions Judge recorded further statements of the accused wherein he further stated that he was falsely implicated in the case.
8. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, on15th October 1999, at 22.30 hours, near Vidya Octroi Naka of Veraval city, due to an altercation between the accused and the deceased at an earlier point of time, with the intention to cause fatal injury by a deadly weapon like knife, inflicted blow at the tender organ and caused death and thus, he had committed culpable homicide amounting to murder. It was further held that the prosecution had successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, at the relevant date and time, in violation of the notification regarding carrying of deadly weapon and use thereof in public issued by the District Magistrate, Junagadh, carried a deadly weapon and used the same to inflict blows on the deceased and had, thus, committed an offence punishable under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as stated hereinabove.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that the learned Sessions Judge although has taken note of the fact that the alleged eyewitnesses became hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution that the accused was the real culprit, nevertheless, found him guilty mainly based on the fact that he had led the Investigating Officer to discovery of the weapon and that the blood appearing on his wearing apparel tallied with the blood of the victim.
10. We, however, find from the materials on record that the evidence as to discovery of the weapon used has not been proved by the panch witnesses, who became hostile. Thus, it was not established that the weapon was discovered by the prosecution at the instance of the accused person in the presence of panch witnesses. Similarly, it appears that discovery of the wearing apparel was also not proved by the panch witnesses. Once discovery of the weapon and the wearing apparel were not proved, the fact that the blood appearing in the alleged wearing apparel tallied with the blood of the victim cannot be taken into account for convicting the accused.
11. We have already pointed out that the eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution at the time of time of trial. All that has been proved was that in the previous night to the incident, there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased regarding parking of scooter but the allegation that as a follow up action, the accused, on the next day killed the victim has not been proved. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, in spite of his specific findings that the alleged eyewitnesses could not prove the actual occurrence of the incident and they were declared hostile, erred in law in holding that the appellant was guilty of killing the victim by relying upon his alleged wearing apparel recovered pursuant to discovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act.
12. It appears that the brother of the victim was a police officer. It further appears from the records that the accused was arrested by the staff of Striking Force on 16th October 1999 at 1540 hours and after he was taken to the Veraval Police Station, the accused had allegedly lodged a Non Cognizable complaint against the deceased Laxmanbhai, vide entry No. 137 of 1999. According to the appellant, this Non Cognizable complaint was manufactured with a view to create evidence against the appellant because such complaint was lodged against him after the appellant was already arrested by the police.
13. PW.17 Navalsinh, the PSO in charge of the Police Station at the relevant time, in his deposition vide Exh. 50 while being examined in cross by the accused has specifically stated that in view of the instructions issued by the superior officer for destroying NC register of 1999, the same had not been produced in the Court. He has further stated that even though it was written in the complaint Exh. 51 that the complainant wanted to go to hospital, he could not say whether the accused was really brought to the hospital or not. He has specifically admitted that the accused was arrested prior to one hour of registration of the Non Cognizable complaint. He has further stated that he had knowledge that the deceased, who was the victim, had already died when he was taking note of the Non Cognizable complaint.
14. We have gone through the entire materials on record. We are convinced that that no oral evidence has been adduced to prove that the accused was really involved in the killing of the deceased. We have already pointed out that it is not possible to rely upon the alleged wearing apparel of the accused when the panchnama of the recovery of the wearing apparel has not been proved. Similarly, discovery of the weapon has also not been proved by the prosecution. In such circumstances, by relying upon the complaint allegedly lodged by the accused against the victim, his conviction cannot be upheld when it appears that such complaint was allegedly lodged at a point of time when he was in police custody and the fact of such filing has been denied. The statement made in the complaint is not admissible in evidence when the maker thereof has denied it and at that time, he was in police custody.
15. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we find that the learned trial Judge has committed error of law in relying upon the inadmissible pieces of evidence while arriving at the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence of committing murder by using the weapon indicated in the judgment. In this case, the Prosecution has failed to prove the commission of the alleged offence against the accused.
16. We, therefore, set aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 25th January 2007 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2000. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Fine, if paid, may be refunded to the appellant. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACTING C.J.] mathew [J.B.PARDIWALA. J.]