BHARATBHAI DANABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals are directed against the judgments and final orders of learned Additional Sessions Judges, Dhrangadhra, in Sessions Case No: 18 of 1999 dated 3.10.2000 and Sessions Case No: 41 of 2002 dated 14.8.2007, whereby these five appellants are convicted for offence punishable under Sec.302, read with Sec.149 of I.P.C., for murder of one Manubhai Mangabhai Vankar on 23.6.1998, and consequently are sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellants are also found guilty of offences punishable under Sec.147 and 148 of I.P.C. Conviction under Sec.353 of I.P.C. is also recorded by learned Sessions Judges, for appellants No:1 to 4. Since the subject matter in all these appeals, is one incident/ offence, all the appeals are heard, considered and decided together, by this common judgment. The reference to all the appellants, for the sake of convenience, is made as under. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_3581_TLGJ0_2011.html</FRM>

(2.) As per prosecution case, on 23.6.1998 the victim Manubhai Mangabhai Vankar was called and then arrested by Police Officer of Dhangadhra Police Station in exercise of powers under Sec. 151 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973, and was then being taken to the Executive Magistrate, Dhrangadhra, by the Head Constable Manilal Ratnaji, PW-14, for proceedings under Sec. 107 of the Cr.P.C. The office of the Executive Magistrate is situated in a Compound/ Complex at Dhrangadhra, wherefrom other Government Offices like Treasury, Sub-Registrar, Taluka Panchayat etc. are also functioning. Courts are also functioning in the same compound. At about 12 O'clock noon, in the court compound, when Police Head Constable Manilal Ratnaji PW-14, was taking the victim to the Executive Magistrate, accused Anil Dana (A-1) and Vinod Dana (A-2), came there; Anil Dana (A-1) gave a slap to the victim; Anil Dana (A-1) and Vinod Dana (A-2) pulled out their knives; victim ran; A-1 and A-2 chased the victim; A-3, A-4 and A-5 caught hold the victim; and A-1 and A-2 gave knife blows to the victim on his back, due to which, the victim was injured. Further the head of the victim was dashed with the wall. He was taken to Dhrangadhra hospital, by PSI Jadeja, PW-21, wherefrom, the victim was advised to be taken to Surendranagar Hospital (at district head quarter), where he was declared dead . The accused had accordingly obstructed Head Constable Manilal Ratnaji, PW-14, in discharging his duties.

(3.) As noted above, initially A-1 and A-5 were absconding. Subsequently, on their arrest, investigation was made by police and charge sheet was filed against those two accused before the competent court, which in turn, committed the case the sessions court, which ultimately was registered as Sessions Case No. 41 of 2002. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against these two accused vide Ex. 11. These accused pleaded not guilty and were put to trial. The prosecution had led 28 witnesses and produced 20 documentary evidences in support of their case, the details of which are referred to in para 3 of the judgement dated 14.8.2007. Learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the evidence adduced during trial, recorded statement of each of these two accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, wherein each accused denied the evidence against him. In the further statement A-1 stated that he is falsely implicated in the case. In the further statement A-5 stated that he is falsely implicated by Police Sub Inspector Jadeja, because he was raising his voice in his news paper, against police, while taking the cause of harijans of that area. He stated that he is a social worker from harijan community and he is falsely implicated. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution and the accused and found A-1, guilty for offences punishable under Sec. 302, 147, 148 and 353 of I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge found A-5 guilty for offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C., Sec. 147 and 148 of I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge accordingly recorded conviction against each accused. Learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard each accused/ convict on the aspect of sentence and ultimately ordered sentences as under.