BABUBHAI RANCHODBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat whereby acquittal of the two appellants of murder charge was set aside and the High Court convicted them under S. 302, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. The two appellants (original accused Nos. 1 and 2) were tried along with three others for offences punishable under Ss. 302, 324, 326 read with Ss. 143, 147, 148 and 149, IPC. The trial Judge convicted the two appellants under S. 304, Part II, IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer five years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of which to suffer one year's R.I. The other three accused were convicted under S. 324, IPC and sentenced to six months' RI. The two appellants, A-1 and A-2 preferred an appeal against their conviction under S. 304, Part II, IPC and the State also filed an appeal against their acquittal of the murder charge. The State also filed another appeal for enhancement sentence. The other accused who were convicted for minor offences also preferred an appeal.The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the two appellants and allowed the appeal filed by the State against them and convicted them u/S. 302, IPC as stated above. The sentence of fine was also confirmed. The other appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence was dismissed. We are not concerned with the convictions and sentences of the other three accused in these appeals.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows. The deceased Bababhai Visabhai and the first appellant Babubhai Ranchhodbhai had a dispute about right of way regarding their agricultural land and the first appellant filed a suit in which a Court Commissioner was to make a local inspection and send a report. On 4th May, 1990 at about 1-15 p.m. the deceased, his son Praveen, P.W. 4 and the complainant Prabhudas, P.W. 2 went to the place of incident along with two panchas. Likewise the first appellant (A-1) with the other accused including two of his panchas went there. In the presence of the Court Commissioner there was hot exchange of words between the two parties while the panchnama was being made on a point about depth of a pit. The Court Commissioner. apprehending breach of peace, left the place. Thereupon it is alleged that A-1 and A-2 took out their knives and gave blows to the deceased and to P.W. 2 Prabhudas and also to P.W. 4 Pravin. The other three accused are alleged to have held the victims. A report was given to the police and the injuried were admitted in the hospital. The deceased died on the way. After the inquest was held, the dead body was sent for post-mortem. The Doctor, P.W. 1 conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and he found one verticle stab wound on the spinal region at the level of 10th rib and another stab wound over lower back of chest. On internal examination he found that injury No. 1 had passed through peritoneum and penetrating through the right lobe of liver and the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to the liver. The Doctor also found injuries on P.W. 4 and also on P.W. 2. The accused when examined u/S.313. Cr. P.C. pleaded not guilty. A-2. however, gave a complaint against the deceased and others for offences punishable u/Ss. 323 and 324. IPC stating that in the presence of the Court Commissioner the deceased and his people attacked them. The Doctor no doubt found some injuries on A-2 but the Doctor having examined the injuries on A-2 opined that they were self-inflicted. Therefore the police concluded that A-2 has given a false complaint.

(3.) The prosecution in the instant case mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 out of which two witnesses are injured. The trial court accepted the evidence of the eye-witnesses and held that there was an unlawful assembly and during the course of occurrence the deceased and the two witnesses received injuries. The trial court also accepted their evidence regarding the participation of A-1 and A-2 to hold that the whole occurrence took place in a sudden manner and that the accused have not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner and that the other accused had not participated in the occurrence. Therefore they are entitled to acquittal of murder charge. But so far as A-1 and A-2 are concerned, they used the knives with the knowledge that they were likely to cause the death and therefore they would be liable under S. 304, Part II, IPC. The High Court considered the evidence of the three eye-witnesses and came to the conclusion that their evidence established beyond all reasonable doubt that these two accused inflicted injuries on the deceased which resulted in the death of the deceased. The High Court also held that there was no common object or intention on the part of A-3, A-4 and A-5. So far as A-1 and A-2 namely the appellants are concerned, the High Court held that they have inflicted the injuries on the deceased as well as on P.Ws. 2 and 4. The High Court also examined the plea of self-defence pleaded by A-2 and negatived the same. The High Court, however, held that the fact that these two accused came armed with knives and used them on mere exchange of words would show that they had a common intention to attack the deceased and therefore they were liable under Ss. 302/ 34, IPC and accordingly convicted them. Though they are also convicted for other offences for causing injuries to the witnesses, no separate sentence was awarded. The sentence of fine was, however, confirmed by the High Court.