GOVINDBHAI JETSIBHAI AAHIR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a judgment and order rendered by Sessions Court, Rajkot at Gondal in Sessions Case No.132 of 1998. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No.837 of 2006 was A-1, whereas, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.666 of 2006 was A-2 before the Sessions Court. They were charged and tried for the offence of murder of Bhimsi Govind, allegedly committed by them on 18/06/1998 at about 20:30 hours in the Gram Panchayat Office by A-2 catching hold of the deceased and A-1 inflicting knife blow on the chest of the deceased. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried. On basis of the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court found them guilty and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00, in default to undergo RI for one year and hence these appeals.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on the relevant date i.e. 18/06/1998, at about 20:30 hours, deceased ­ Bhimsi, who was also of the same village Talasama, was in his office alongwith several other persons working on the water supply scheme. At that point of time, both these appellants went to the office and inquired of him as to what is this water supply scheme and what money is required to be paid. They were informed that they had to pay stipulated amount, but then A-1 asked the deceased as to what, if even after payment, water is not supplied. The reply that came from deceased ­ Bhimsi was that, if there is water it would be supplied and, if there is no water, water would be supplied from well. That enraged A-1­ Sanjaysinh resulting into an altercation and a fight. In that fight, it is the case of prosecution that A-1 gave a knife blow to the deceased, whereas, A-2 caught hold of the deceased. Others intervened and deterred A-2 from inflicting further blows. As a result of the knife blow given by A-1 to the deceased, he started bleeding profusely. He was, therefore, carried to hospital and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries. FIR was lodged by P.W.No.7 ­Ramdevbhai.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Mr.Anandjiwala while pleading the case of A-1 submitted that from the evidence he would not be able to contend that there is non-involvement of A-1, but according to him, involvement of A-1 in the incident cannot make him guilty of offence of murder. If the evidence is seen, it is clear that the incident occurred all of a sudden. There was a quarrel and fight and in that, the appellant had inflicted the knife blow. He has inflicted only one knife blow and, therefore, provisions contained in Section 304 would be attracted rather than Section 302 of the IPC. He submitted that A-1 is suffering from hemiplegia and is disabled. He has no other criminal antecedents and, therefore, a sympathetic approach may be adopted while awarding sentence.