VECHANBHAI HIRABHAI VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal arises out of a judgment and order rendered by Sessions Court, Bharuch in Sessions Case No.57 of 2006 on 13/10/2006, whereby the present appellant ­ Vechanbhai Hirabhai Vasava was convicted for murder of Murarbhai Muljibhai Vasava by inflicting a stick blow on his head. He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default, to undergo SI for three months by the said judgment and order.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant and deceasedMurarbhai are neighbours staying opposite to each other. The deceased made out a fence on his land, where the appellant used to normally sit. The appellant, therefore, felt offended and carried an impression that the fence is installed only to deter him from sitting over there. On the next day of installation of the fence, i.e. on 15/03/2006, the appellant called deceased­Murarbhai from his house at about 21:00 hours and, when he came out, he inflicted one blow with a small stick on the head of the deceased. The deceased fell down and, therefore, the appellant ran away throwing the stick at the place of incident. The deceased was taken to Hospital, where he was declared dead. Therefore, Amrutbenconcubine of the deceased lodged FIR with Ankleshwar Rural Police Station. Offence was registered, investigated and chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Ankleshwar, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Case No.57 of 2006 came to be registered.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned APP has opposed the appeal. He submitted that since involvement of the accused is not disputed, it is only the conduct of the accused, which is required to be seen. Intention can be inferred only from the conduct. Here, the appellant had called the deceased from his house and without any altercation, dispute, quarrel or fight, straightway assaulted the deceased on vital part of his body viz., head. He had used a stick with force. That the deceased fell down and died on the spot and thereafter when Amrutben approached the deceased at the place of incident from the house, the accused had said that, 'I have killed Murar and what are you going to do' and then left the place. Therefore, the appellant's intention to cause death of Murar is apparent and conspicuous. The trial Court was, therefore, justified in convicting the appellant and appeal may therefore be dismissed.