SHANABHAI GOKALABHAI BARIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Deceased Rumal Gokal was the brother of Appellant 1 Shanabhai gokalbhai. Appellants 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of Appellant 1. Appellant 5 is the son of another brother of Appellant 1, Rai Singh. Deceased Rumal Gokal was unmarried. It appears that partition of the ancestral property had been made but since Rumal Gokal was unmarried, there were frequent quarrels between the family members mostly because of the property of deceased rumal Gokal.

(2.) On 10-8-1991 in the evening Fatabhai Fulabhai, PW 6 informed the deceased, who had because of the quarrel with his brother, gone to stay with his stepsister, that the wood of the roof of the house of the deceased had come out because of rains. The deceased along with his nephew Kantibhai kuberbhai, PW 3 and his nephew's wife Madhuben Kantibhai, PW 5 went to the spot with a view to repair the roof. All the appellants appeared on the spot variously armed and asked the deceased as to why he had come there and said that he should go away. On his insistence to repair the roof, the appellants assaulted him. Various injuries were caused by the appellants to the deceased not only on the spot but also when he was trying to run for his life and also after he had fallen down. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. Kantibhai Kuberbhai, PW 3 and Madhuben Kantibhai, PW 5 witnessed the occurrence. It was PW 3 who lodged the report of the occurrence. Both these witnesses (PW 3 and PW 5) as well as Fatabhai fulabhai, PW 6 who had initially conveyed information to the deceased about the damage of the roof of his house, appeared in the witness box and narrated the occurrence in the manner stated by the prosecution. They were crossexamined but their testimonies remained unassailed. Their evidence remained unshattered. The trial court relying upon the medical evidence as well as evidence of the aforesaid three eyewitnesses came to the conclusion that the appellants had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and with the common object of causing the murder of deceased Rumal Gokal, assaulted him by various weapons which each one of them was carrying. The trial court accordingly convicted them for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment besides a fine of rs 1000 on them. In default of payment of fine, three months' rigorous imprisonment was awarded. No separate sentence was recorded insofar as the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 149 are concerned.

(3.) The appellants filed an appeal in the High Court challenging their conviction and sentence. A Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 20-12-1993 dismissed the appeal. The High Court opined that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was convincing and the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the high Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. Hence this appeal by special leave.