ALLARAKHA K MANSURI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1989 and after trial was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on 11-9-1990. The appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal was allowed by the High Court vide judgment impugned in this appeal holding the appellant guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 27th March, 1989 at about 7.30 p.m., the appellant along with Ramji Khamisa Mansuri went to the Tea stall of the deceased armed with Dharia. He inflicted four blows to the deceased with that Dharia, as a result of which deceased Abdul Karim Ali Mohamed sustained serious injuries on head and other portions of his body. He was shifted to the Hospital but he succumbed to the injuries. At about 7.45 p.m. a message was received at Police Station, Bhachau from the Medical Hospital stating that Abdul Karim Ali Mohamed who has been brought to the Hospital had sustained serious injuries and was being shifted to Bhuj Civil Hospital.The intimation was recorded as Crime Entry No. 20 of 1989 in the Police Station diary. Thereafter the statement of Ali Mohmed was recorded in the police station and the FIR registered which was marked as Exhibit 30. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. The prosecution examined 10 wtnesses. Ali Mohdmed Husein (P.W. 4), complainant, Rajesh Velji (P.W. 5), Shashikant (P.W. 6) and Mamudo alias Abdulla (P.W. 9) were cited eye-witnesses. As Rajesh Velji (P.W. 5) did not fully support the case of the prosecution, he was declared hostile. The trial Court discarded the testimony of the eye-witnesses and acquitted the accused. It appears that the trial Court mainly relied upon the following aspects for acquitting the accused persons :

(3.) In appeal, the High Court relied upon the testimony of the eye-witnesses and convicted the appellant vide impugned judgment. The High Court held :