LAXMANBHAI @ LAKHMANBHAI LALUBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this Appeal, the appellant-original accused challenged judgment and order dated 10th January 1996 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, Camp Valsad, in Sessions Case No.84/1994, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

(2.) It was the case of the prosecution revealed from the complaint lodged by Leeluben Kantibhai, the wife of the deceased Kantibhai, which came to be recorded as First Information Report (Exh. 15), that as usual her husband was to go to sea in a boat to catch the fish on 27.08.1986. The accused was to accompany him as a sailor (Khalasi). On the night of 26.08.1986, the appellant went to the house of the deceased Kantibhai and asked for Rs. 200/-. Kantibhai offered Rs. 100/- and told him that he would give the remaining amount later. The accused did not accept the money and went back, came again after some time, took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed Kantibhai in the abdomen. The injured Kantibhai was taken to Valsad Civil Hospital for treatment in the car of one Harishbhai, a resident of the village. The complainant stated that while there were no other eye witnesses of the incident, she had seen herself the accused stabbing her husband.

(3.) Learned advocate Ms. Sadhna Sagar appearing for the appellant submitted that there were no eye witnesses to the incident except complainant herself, who was the wife of the deceased. It was submitted that the trial court could not have based the conviction on the basis of her evidence. According to learned advocate, she apart from being a sole eye witness. She could not have been treated as an independent witness because she was the wife of the deceased. According to learned advocate the trial court committed an error in convicting the accused on the basis of the testimony of that sole witness. It was submitted that her account of incident was not reliable as she stated in her evidence only that the deceased was wounded in the abdomen without specifying as to on which part of abdomen the knife was applied. It was further submitted that in the complaint her case was that the deceased died due to assault and injury inflicted by the appellant but when the injured was taken to the hospital, while giving history, she stated that her husband died because of injury caused for the reason that a piece of tin-sheet pierced through as he fell down while working on the vessel.