SRIKANT @ PATEL RAMSHANKAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals are preferred by three accused persons convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- each by learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.35 of 2003. Among the three appellants, Suresh @ Kaliyo Buddhilal (for short A-1) has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1175 of 2006, Srikant @Ramshankar (for short A-2) has preferred Criminal Appeal No.680 of 2010 and Satishsinh Kailashsinh (for short A-3) has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1088 of 2006, and learned counsel for each of the appellants have been heard and the appeals are disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) WHILE A-1 and A-2, aged 22 and 27 respectively, were in Junagadh jail and A-3, aged 19, was under preventive detention in the same jail, on 31.1.2003 they had gone into the barrack known as ?Manoranjan Barrack? at around 08.00 a.m. and another convicted inmate namely, Kaluji Bhaguji, was attacked with a knife due to which he had to be taken to a local hospital and then referred to Rajkot Civil Hospital where he died of the fatal wound inflicted on him. According to the prosecution case, A-2 and A-3 had caught hold of the victim in the barrack and A-1 had inflicted fatal wound on his chest by a knife made out of a spoon used in cooking. The cause of the conflict was stated to be some dispute over watching T.V. in that barrack. 2.1 On the accused being committed for trial, 28 witnesses were examined and 64 documents were produced and exhibited to prove commission of the offence by the appellants. The trial court, taking judicial notice of certain facts about the prevailing conditions in the jail and relying mainly upon the eye-witness account and statements of the victim before several witnesses, held the offence to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt against all the three accused persons.

(3.) UPON perusal of the evidence as briefly narrated hereinabove, it was clear that commission of the offence under section 300 of IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt. As for involvement of the accused persons, it was unmistakably coming out in evidence that A-2 had caught the victim and A-1 had given the fatal blow with a crude knife. Therefore, A-1 and A-2 were found and held to have acted in concert and indicated their involvement in the offence and carrying out the assault with a common intention. However, as far as A-3 was concerned, the evidence of his involvement is found to be initially shaky and buttressed later on by consistent and similar statements of the witnesses who handled the victim. Even as presence of A-3 at the time and place of offence could not be seriously disputed, there was hardly any reliable evidence about his sharing of common intention with A-1 and A-2. In the deposition of important and independent witnesses (PW.2 Exh.25 and PW.13 Exh.50) or in the FIR the name of A-3 did not figure. As per further statement of A-3 recorded on 09.03.2006, his age was 19 years, after three years of the date of offence, and hence he could be below the age of 18 years at the time of the offence. It was, on that basis, submitted by learned counsel for A-3 that even as no positive evidence of his date of birth or age could be led or produced even at the stage of hearing of the appeal, benefit of doubt was required to be given to A-3.