AHER RAJASHI DEVAYAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the prosecution in brief, is that deceased Jasabhai Lakshman was a resident of village Jar and he used to reside there in company of his family. One Lakhabhai Hirabhai was working as labourer-cum-Driver, with the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that on the day of the incident the deceased Jasabhai was in Dela. At that time, Lakhabhai Hirabhai had come there with the tractor from the field and he was taking the vehicle in reverse but at that time, the Appellants Accused No. 1 and

(2.) , had come there and they has started to belabour Lakhabhai. Meanwhile, according to the case of the prosecution, the deceased Jasabhai had come out from his Dela and at that time all the six accused persons had attacked him and he had sustained grave injuries. It is also the case of the prosecution that the complainant Jaydcv Jagmal, driver Lakhabhai Hirabhai and Kantaben had also sustained certain injuries. The vehicle was called from village Panali and deceased was taken to the hospital at Upleta. It is the case of the prosecution that later on FIR was lodged by complainant Jaydcv at Uplcta Police Station and offences were registered. During the course of the investigation the panchnama of the scene of the occurrence was prepared. In the same way the map of the scene of the offence was also prepared. The report of the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was also obtained. The other injured persons were treated in the hospital. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused persons were arrested with muddamal weapons. 2. Evidence tendered by complainant and two eye-witnesses Kantaben and Lakhabhai runs counter to the medical evidence on record. It is clear that the complainant and the eye-witnesses have tried to exaggerate the case of the prosecution. A positive tendency on the part of the complainant and eye-witnesses to exaggerate the case of the prosecution clearly with a view to rope in or implicate as many as from the accused persons as is possible is discernible.

(3.) When the evidence tendered by the complainant and alleged eye-witnesses runs counter to the medical evidence on record, no reliance on the same can be placed. Moreover, when there is a tendency on the part of the complainant and the eye-witnesses to implicate more than one person by saying that there were more than one injury on the person of the deceased their say becomes unacceptable. Considering the evidence on record, it cannot be said that complainant and alleged eye-witnesses arc the witnesses of truth. Moreover, a clear tendency is seen on the part of the complainant and eye-witnesses to try to rope in more than one accused persons by saying that deceased had received multiple injuries by multiple stick blows given by at least four assailants, In view of this position, the aforesaid evidence cannot be accepted and on the basis of the same, it cannot be accepted that accused persons No.1 & 2, were the Authors of the injuries on the person of the deceased.