RAMESHJI AMARSING THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us, after being acquitted by the Trial Court, on appeal by the State, was convicted by the High Court for commission of offences under Ss. 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arises from killing of one Jayantibhai (deceased) in the evening hours of 10/7/1995 with knife blows. In his statement supporting the FIR, PW1, brother of the deceased has attributed commission of the offence to the appellant as also two other individuals who were arraigned as accused. They are the father and brother of the appellant. The prosecution case is that upon receiving knife injuries, the deceased had collapsed after running few paces. Subsequently, he was brought to his residence and thereafter taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. The autopsy surgeon found his death to have been caused by shock and hemorrhage due to stab injuries. He had identified altogether eight injuries on the body of the deceased, which in his opinion were ante-mortem.

(2.) The prosecution case is primarily founded on evidence of PW2 (Parvatiben), who is presented by the prosecution as eyewitness. She happens to be a distant relative of the deceased. The other part of evidence on which prosecution has relied upon is dying declaration of the deceased, which was made before PW2 and PW3 (Shivaji), brother of the deceased, in response to the latters query about the identity of the assailant. PW4 (Rameshji) and PW5 (Laxmanji) have corroborated this. The Trial Court acquitted three individuals arraigned as accused mainly based on medical evidence and the reasoning of the Trial Court would appear from paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Trial Court. We reproduce the said paragraph below:-

(3.) Mr. D.N. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that there were substantial inconsistencies and contradictions in the witnesses statements and the eyewitnesses herself, being a relative, was not a neutral person. He has also taken us through the part of the judgment in which the Trial Court found contradiction in the prosecution version as regards the manner in which the knife blows were inflicted as also identification of the assault weapon. His submission is that the medical evidence was clear that the knife which was muddamal 9 (the seized knife) could not have caused fatal injury. He also raised doubt on the authenticity of the dying declaration. The High Court held, reversing the Trial Courts judgment:-