SHANABHAI BALUBHAI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, ("the Code" for short) is directed against judgment dated September 24, 1996 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra, in Sessions Case No. 56 of 1996 by which the appellant is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 301 of Indian Penal Code ("ipc" for short), and sentenced to suffer R. I. for life and fine of Rs. 200. 00 (Rs. Two Hundred Only), in default R. I. for three months.

(2.) THE appellant is a resident of village Khandivav, Taluka Jambughoda, District panchmahals. Deceased Lilaben was his wife. The appellant has two sons, i. e. Ranjit and Arjun. Ranjit is widower and, therefore, was residing with the appellant where arjun was residing in a separate house situated near the house of the appellant. The incident in question took place on November 7, 1995 in the house of the appellant. Jashiben, who is daughter of the appellant, had come to the house of the appellant for delivery and was accompanied by her husband, Rajubhai. The appellant was suspective chastity of his wife. At about 9. 30 p. m. , the appellant started abusing the deceased, as a result of which, an altercation and scuffle took place between the appellant and the deceased. On hearing commotion, Arjunbhai, who was residing in a nearby house came to the house of the appellant and found that the appellant was quarrelling with his mother. The abuses which were hurled by the appellant were also heard by his son-in-law Rajubhai. Rajubhai, after expressing his displeasure at the conduct and behaviour of the appellant, left the house of the appellant to go to his house situated in village. Malu, but was persuaded to return by Ranjitbhai who had come back after attending duties in a factory. It was found by Ranjit also that the appellant was quarrelling with his mother. Therefore, he persuaded his father not to quarrel with his mother. There upon, a quarrel took place between the appellant and his son Ranjit. In a flash, the appellant took out a "chharo", (a large and sharp knife) blade of which was seven inch long and handle of which was four inches long, and aimed the same at ranjitbhai cause an injury to him. Deceased Lilaben, who was wife of the appellant and mother ranjit, apprehended that the appellant would kill Ranjit. She, therefore, rushed and came in between. The appellant inflicted knife injury on her chest which was upward direction. Because of great force with which injury was inflicted on the deceased, the deceased sustained fracture of 4th and 5th ribs whereas anterior wall of her heart was cut. Because of serious injuries sustained by her, the deceased bled profusely and die on the spot within no time. After the deceased fell down on the ground, an attempt was made by the appellant to run away which was foiled by his two sons, and while making an attempt to run away, the appellant threw the big knife in a hedge. In the melee, the appellant also sustained injury on his hand by his knife. The appellant was apprehend by his two sons and son-in-law and tied with a pole. Arjunbhai went to jambughoda police Station along with two persons and lodged first information report at about 10 p. m. The information given by Arjunbhai was reduced into writing by Mr. R. N. Rathod, who was then PSI of Jambughoda Police Station. The Police officer immediately went to the place of the incident and found that the appellant was tied with a pole. After drawing Panchnama of his person, the appellant was arrested. As an injury was sustained by the appellant, he was referred to Jambughoda Community health Centre for treatment. In the early morning of the next date, i. e. November 8, 1995, inquest on the dead body of the deceased was held in presence of panch witnesses. Investigating officer drew Panchnama of place of occurrence from where blood-stained earth and blood-stained Chharo were recovered. He also recorded statements of those persons who were found conversant with the facts of the case. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the Hospital for post-mortem examination. On completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted in the Court of learned Judicial magistrate First Class, halol, for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 301 ipc. As the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Panchmahals at Godhra, for trial where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 56 of 1996.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra, framed charge against the appellant at Exhibit 3 of the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 301 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, examined :