RAMSING PRAHLADSING CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ramsing Prahladsing Chauhan the appellant. who was P.S.I. at Godhra. came to he convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Panchmahals at Godhra for offence under sec. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I for life on 7-9-81 in Sessions Case No. 37/81. He challenges by this appeal. the said conviction and sentence. The facts which are not in dispute. may be briefly stated as under: The appellant at the relevant time was serving as Mounted Police Sub-Inspector at Godhra. According to prosecution case the accused had entrusted one fowl to one police constable Nanabhai Ranmal who happened to be the person residing in the adjoining quarter of the deceased Janmahmad who was serving as Mounted Police Jamadar at Godhra. .The said fowl was lost and the police constable Nanabhai Ranmal informed the accused that the fowl was lost and was not traceable. The accused thereupon stated that the fowl must not have been lost but must have eaten away by Janmahmad who was residing next door to the said police constable Nanabhai Ranmal. The prosecution case is that on the day of the incident i.e. 30/11/1980 the appellant went to the stable where the horses were kept and after taking roll call of the persons who were present on duty. he went back to his house and again came to the stable at about 10.00 P.M. He sat in one chair and he called the deceased. He had a revolver with him and after calling Janmahmad he asked him as to why he had taken away his hen which was giving eggs and ate away the hen. He told him that he would eat his children away. *** Thereafter there was some altercation and ultimately the accused who had a revolver with him fired at Janmahmad. Four to six shots were fired. By that time Vitthalbhai Dhulabhai hearing the shots came up. In fact Vitthalbhai saw the whole incident and he gave jerk to the head of the accused as a result of which the pistol fell down and he caught him from behind. At that stage. the wife of the accused came there. His nephew also came there and he told his wife to take away the revolver. She was not allowed to take away the revolver by Vitthalbhai and others who were present there. Police authorities were immediately informed and the investigation started. Ultimately the accused was charge-sheeted for an offence under sec. 302 I.P.C. and also for an offence under sec. 66(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

(2.) At the trial of the case in the Sessions Court the prosecution examined 13 witnesses.

(3.) The accused denied the guilt and he did not lead any defence.