UMEDBHAI JADAVBHAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Deceased Minakshi is the wife of the accused Umedbhai Jadavbhai, who is the appellant in this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court. He was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, but on appeal by the State, the High Court convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. for murder of his wife and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Minakshi was a young girl of 20 years and was married to the accused on June 30, 1972. On the very day of marriage, she cames to the house of the accused an returned to her parents" house at Umalla after about 5 or 7 days. She was sent back to Panolkampa to the house of the parents-in-law on or about October 14, 1972 From Panolkampa, she came to the house of the accused at Zadeshwar on 19-11-72 and she was to leave for Umalla, her parents" place on 21-11-72.

(2.) On the night between 20th and 21st November, 1972 at about 3.30 A. M., the neighbourhood was alerted by the accused shouting from his "Agasi" (terrace) "Run, Run, thieves have entered". Immediately Mahalaxmi (P.W. 4) whose house was almost opposite to that of the accused with a path intervening and who was talking in her courtyard to the house of the accused. There was a death in the village and they were awake, Some other neighbours also came including Ishvarbhai Hirabhai (P. W. 6). First Ishvarbhai went to the upper storey of the house of the accused accompanied by two others. He saw the accused and his brother Dinesh standing in the "Agasi". When he asked the accused as to what had taken place, he replied "thief inside". He also stated that the accused appeared to be nervous. When he went inside, he saw Minakshi lying with injuries between the outer and the inner room. He then shouted to the women to come up and they all saw Minakshi lying injured and restless. He did not ask the accused or Dinesh as to what had taken place. It also does not appear that the accused or Dinesh gave any further information to him about the incident. Harikrishna (P. W. 11) Ayurvedic Doctor, was called by the son of Jesingbhai, husband of Sadaben, and he came to the house of the accused at 4.20 A.M. and found Minakshi absolutely unconscious although bleeding from the injuries. After he rendered first aid, she died within 8 or 10 minutes. The Doctor (P. W. 2), who held autopsy of the dead body of Minakshi on the following morning, found the following injuries:-

(3.) The prosecution wanted to establish that the accused was not well disposed towards his wife and in fact was planning for a divorce. In this connection an anonymous letter (Article 7) addressed to the decreased with the envelope found in the bag of the deceased was relied upon by the prosecution. The letter was addressed to the deceased by "your anonymous elder brother". This was dated 19th of September, 1972. Since the accused denied his handwriting in this letter, the handwriting expert (P. W. 17) was examined and he was of opinion that the specimen handwriting which the accused gave and the writing in another admitted letter. of the accused were similar to the disputed anonymous letter. The Sessions Judge did not rely upon the evidence of the handwriting expert and held that the motive was not established, The High Court took a contrary view, This letter went to show that the accused was indifferent to the deceased and since she herself had realised that the accused was not at all interested in her and was not at all a loving husband, a proposal for divorce was suggested therein The letter proceeds "According to me he (the accused) will give you a divorce. When a question of divorce will come for a clever girl like you, it would be said to be too bad for you, your family and for society. And if this question will come two to three years later them it will also become difficult to arrange your marriage in good family. So, although much time has not yet been elapsed since you have got married therefore do think properly if you want to think on this matter. You should inform Umed, by writing him a letter stating that "it is very difficult for me to pass my life with you". So it will be said that the girl might have seen some defect in boy". Babubhai, the father of the deceased (P. W. 14) mentioned about the reported unwillingness of the accused at first to marry the deceased but later on he wrote him a letter expressing his willingness. That letter had, however, not been produced. The father stated that according to him, the relation between his daughter and the accused was not cordial. From the above, the prosecution tried to establish a motive for the crime. The Sessions Judge did not accept this part of the case. The High Court, on the other hand, did. Dealing with the point that the accused alone had the opportunity of committing the crime, the Sessions Judge ruled out that theory stating "Though there is no evidence as to theft, there is equally no conclusive evidence to show that there was no theft." The Sessions Judge was not prepared to hold that the theory of the accused that thieves had entered into his house was false. The Sessions Judge then dealt with the position of the body of the deceased which was found in between the outer and the inner rooms of the upper floor. It was lying in the communicating door between the two rooms. The head was in inner room and the legs were in the outer room. Minakshi"s bed was about 2 or 3 feet from her head. According to the Sessions Judge, "the victim must have run from the outer room into the inner room when she was stabbed to death. Therefore, the theory of the prosecution that the accused inflicted knife blows upon her when she was sleeping or reclining on her bed cannot be accepted". The Sessions Judge also held as significant the fact of the accused shouting for the neighbours while the deceased was still alive. This point was very much emphasised even by Mr. Desai, the learned counsel for the appellant. Would the accused take a risk of inviting the neighbours to his house when the deceased was alive and she was likely to name him if he was the real murderer, said the learned counsel