KOLI LAKHMANBHAI CHANABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated February 21, 1997 in Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1985 passed by the High Court of Gujarat whereby the Court partly allowed the appeal of the State and set aside the judgment and order dated January 31, 1985 rendered in Sessions Case No. 85/84 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Junagadh acquitting the appellant and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and imposed sentence for life.

(2.) It is the prosecution story that original accused No. 1 approached the father of P. W. 2 Bhana Puna for rendering assistance for construction of house at Una, district Junagadh. Father of PW2 gave some amount, which resulted into close relationship between the families. Thereafter, deceased Naran Puna had gone to Bombay for further studies in the year 1974 and stayed with the family of accused No. 1. It is alleged that accused No. 1 was having five to six wives and Narmada was one of them with whom deceased developed some relations; Hence deceased was thrashed by the accused and thereafter at the request of PW 2 he was permitted to go to Una. Subsequently, accused No. 1 (father of the appellant) and appellant (accused No. 2) hatched a conspiracy at Bombay that the deceased Naran Puna, younger brother of PW 2 be done to death on account of misconduct or misbehaviour of deceased with the wife of accused No. 1. In the present appeal, we are not required to consider the evidence relating to the said part of the incident as the incident in question had taken place after ten years, on 17th July, 1984 between 3.00 to 4.00 p.m. on Una-Veraval road. It is the prosecution version that accused No. 2 inflicted several knife blows on deceased, Naran Puna on account of enmity and ill-will of accused No. 1 with the deceased. PW 2 Bhana Puna, brother of the deceased on receipt of the information at about 3.30 p.m. that his brother was done to death near the farm of Jaigurudev, rushed to that place where he found several persons among whom PW 7 Babu Govind and PW 11 Bhagwan Jana were present. On inquiry, he learnt that Laxman Channa (appellant) had committed murder of deceased Naran. He thereafter lodged FIR at 5.00 p.m. at Una Police Station. After completing the investigation, appellant was charged with the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and original accused No. 1 was charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109, IPC and both of them were also charged with the offence punishable under Section 120-B, IPC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses and on appraisal and assessment thereof came to the conclusion that the prosecution case was not established beyond reasonable doubt, hence he acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt. Against that judgment and order the appeal filed by the State Government was partly allowed and appellant was convicted as stated above. That order is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) At the time of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Addl. Sessions Judge, Junagadh has rightly given benefit of doubt to the accused as the so-called eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. He has also submitted that the High Court erroneously relied upon the evidence of PW-7, Babu Govind, who had been treated hostile by the prosecution, for arriving at the conclusion that appellant was seen by him giving the knife blows to the deceased. He also contended that the incriminating evidence which is relied upon by the prosecution for recovery of blood-stained knife and clothes of the accused, could not be relied upon because the panchas have not supported the said recovery. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court has scanned the entire evidence in proper perspective and, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the High Court does not call for any interference.