CHHABILDAS GOKALDAS LUHANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant came to be tried by Sessions Court, Amreli in Sessions Case No.69 of 1996 for the offence of murder of Husseinbin alias Kalubhai Meshanbin Arab, allegedly committed on 25th June 1996 at about 19:30 hours, near Bhagyoday Hotel, near Bus Station, Amreli. He came to be convicted for the said offence by judgement and order dated 30th January 1999 and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months, and hence, this appeal.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, the deceased asked appellant Chhabildas Gokaldas Lohana about the contents of a bag that he was carrying, and then tried to peep into the bag. The appellant, in return, inflicted knife blows on chest, wrist, neck and earlobe of the deceased. This incident was seen by eye-witnesses, Rafikbhai Samadumiya Saiyed, exh.8 and Abedhussein Mohammadhussein Saiyed Bareval, exh.15. Both these witnesses are rickshaw drivers, who were standing with their rickshaws at the rickshaw stand situated near Bhagyoday Hotel. They saw the appellant inflicting knife blows, and then trying to escape. They claimed that they chased him with other witnesses to the incident and apprehended him on the spot with knife and handed him over to the traffic police. They also took the deceased to the hospital. The consistent version emerging from the depositions of these two witnesses has been tested on touchstone of cross-examination and they have stood the test.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Supehia submitted that it emerges from evidence that the victim inquired of the appellant about the contents of the bag with him and even tried to peep into it. This was an encroachment on privacy of the appellant - accused, which may have provoked the appellant and the incident occurred. This aspect, however, gets negatived with the evidence of eye-witness PW-4 Abedali Mohammadhussein Saiyed Bareval, who during cross-examination, has stated that after the transaction between the appellant and the deceased as to inquiring about the contents of the bag and trying to look into it, the appellant left the place and came back after about an hour and then without any dialogue with the deceased, assaulted him with the knife. The defence theory advanced by learned advocate Mr.Supehia, therefore, gets negatived and cannot be accepted.