BACHUBHA Vs. SAURASHTRA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Central Saurashtra Division, of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to death. The learned Sessions Judge made a reference to this Court for confirmation of the sentence, while the petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence. We dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed his sentence of death. The petitioner now applies for a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2.) THE facts upon which the petitioner has been convicted are shortly as follows. On 10.11.1951 the petitioner, who belongs to Navania in the Jalawad District, came to the Vada (a small open plot) of the deceased Ranmal, situated a little to the west of the village Ridad in Central Saurashtra District, after sunset from the direction of the adjoining vadi of Ramji Bacher. Ranmal and Ms sons TapUj Ramji and Nanji were stacking fodder in the vada. The petitioner came flashing an electric torch and carried a gun and a 'thela' or bag. After a little chat with Ranmal, he returned towards Ramji's vadi, and a little thereafter, the sons returned to their respective homes for supper, while Ranmal went to his Khala (thrashing floor), which was to the west of Ramji's vadi. The petitioner then went to Ranmal's khala and sent him to the village for tea. Ranmal, who was messing with his son Ramji, came home and told him that the petitioner had come to the khala and had sent him to bring tea. Tea was accordingly prepared and put into a 'lota' (a brass pot) and Ranmal left for the khala with the lota and brass saucer. The petitioner and Ranmal then proceeded in company from the khala and the petitioner shot Ranmal dead in a field, which belonged to Soma Mangla. The motive for the offence as made out by the prosecution, was that the petitioner wanted to join a gang of daccits headed by Rajput Bhupat Maruji, and in order to qualify himself for admission to the gang, he had to commit a murder with a gun. He therefore, placed two jasachithis (threatening letters) in a temple outside the village and two in the chora. One of the jasachithis placed in the choraj Ex. 26, declares his motive in very clear terms. The petitioner's visit to Ranmal's vada is proved by the testimony of Tapu, Ramji and Nanji, but there is no direct evidence of what happened after he left the vada. No one saw him and the deceased together either at the khala or at the scene of the offence; nor has any one seen him firing the shot, and nothing incriminating has been found on him. The evidence of what happened after the petitioner left Ranmal's vada is, thus, purely circumstantial. Similarly there is no direct evidence to Drove that the petitioner placed the jasachithis either at the temple or at the chora. It is not necessary to recapitulate, at this stage all the circumstances on which the conclusion of the petitioner's guilt is founded, and we shall refer to them later in their proper place.

(3.) WE shall now discuss the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner in the light of the above principles. Mr. Kripalsinhji the learned Advocate for the petitioner, first contended that although the investigation was complete on 11.11.51 by 11 p.m., i.e. on the next day after the commission of the offence, the charge -sheet was submitted on 20.6.52, and this delay of more than eight months, in submitting the charge -sheet, was fatal to the prosecution and his client should have been acquitted. This ground, he submitted, raised a substantial question of law and justified the grant of the certificate. His next contention was about the admissibility of the first information report. Information of the offence was first given by Ranmal's son Keshu to the Police Patel at the Village Kerala at about 3 a.m. on 11.11.51. The Police Patel prepared a report, Ex. 20, addressed to the Officer in charge, Police Station at Padadhari. This report merely stated that the petitioner had killed the deceased with a gun in the western sim (outskirts) of the village, but gave no other details. Keshu and the Police Patel then proceeded to Sarapdad, where Nurrnahmad, the head constable in charge of the police outpost there, recorded Keshu's information, Ex. 4. The Police Patel's report Ex. 20, was also handed over to him at that time. Exhibit 4 has been treated as the first information report in the case, though Ex. 20 was also admitted in evidence. Mr. Kripalsinh argued that the Police Patel's report Ex. 20, which was the information received first in time by the Police, should have been treated as the first information report and Ex. 4 i.e. the information recorded later by the head constable Nurmahmad at Sarapdad, should not have been admitted in evidence; and as no details were mentioned in the Police Patel's report, that fact considerably detracted from the credibility of prosecution witnesses His next ground for grant of the certificate was that the circumstances, from which the conclusion of the petitioner's guilt was drawn, were not fully established, and the evidence, on which they were held proved, was either tainted or otherwise unreliable, and in any event the circumstances were not incompatible with the petitioner's innocence. The petition states in detail the grounds on which these submissions have been based.