DHANJIBHAI M. RATHVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) to 20. xxx xxx xxx

(2.) True it is that, out of five eyewitnesses, PW -5 Arjunbhai Tetabhai, son -in -law of the deceased and PW -6 Chhatrasinh Kesurbhai, Exh.18, have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. That brings this Court to appreciate the evidence of remaining three eye witnesses. Appreciating the evidence of PW -3 Shantaben, PW -4 Sumitraben and PW -7 Kuchiyabhai Shankerbhai, it clearly transpires that the evidence of all these three eye -witnesses cannot be brushed aside only because out of three witnesses, two are related to the deceased. The law, in this respect cautions the courts to scrutinise the evidence of interested witnesses carefully and if found trustworthy, the same can be relied upon if inspires confidence. When we visualize occurrence of the incident, while appreciating the evidence of these three eye -witnesses, it becomes clear that the presence of these three eye -witnesses at the scene of offence becomes natural. It is established beyond doubt that PW -4 Sumitraben though married daughter of the deceased, had come to the parental home along with her husband. It is established beyond reasonable doubt that there was a dispute about land between the appellant and deceased who happened to be real brothers. It is also established that the houses of the deceased and appellant were situated at a distance of about 300 feet. The time of incident is about 11.00 a.m. in the morning. Undoubtedly, at that time, when incident occurred, wife of the deceased and daughter of the deceased were in the house when they heard some commotion. They immediately came out of the house as they had knowledge that the accused was going to the house of the appellant and witnessed that appellant darted an arrow towards the deceased from a very short distance. Witness Shantaben and Sumitraben both have withstood the cross -examination of the defence. Though being rustic and illiterate village ladies, nothing could be elicited from any of them through cross -examination as to create any doubt as to the evidence of the said witnesses being truthful. Though certain contradictions were asked and proved but the contradictions are minor and as to what was dispute about the land and not affecting the core of prosecution case and the core of the prosecution case is appellant darted an arrow which struck on the body of the deceased in between chest and abdomen of the deceased. PW -3 Shantaben being wife of the deceased and PW -4 Sumitraben being daughter of the deceased and since the incident occurred near their house, their presence at the scene of offence being natural, there cannot be any doubt that they must have witnessed the incident. Simplicity and the manner in which PW -3 Shantaben and PW -4 Sumitraben have deposed before the Court is the guarantee of their truthfulness. They had ample opportunity to witness and observe the incident. Without any exaggeration or embellishment in the deposition before the Court, they have narrated the incident as it had occurred and could not be shaken by the defence in cross -examination. There is no rhyme or reason for a wife or a daughter of the deceased falsely and to allow the real culprit to go scot -free. Likewise, there are no reasons at all to doubt their testimony. The evidence therefore of PW -3 Shantaben and PW -4 Sumitraben accordingly inspire confidence and is worthy of acceptance.

(3.) 22. to 24. xxx xxx xxx