STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KOLI MANU RAVJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Koli Manu Ravji was tried by the learn- ed Additional Sessions Judge Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1989 for offences punishable under secs. 302 324 323 and 504 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came on the conclusion that the accused had given knife blows to the deceased and caused his death but while exercising his right of private defence he had exceeded the said right and therefore the offence committed by him was one punishable 4 under sec. 304 Part I I.P.C. and not under sec. 302 I.P.C. He also reached a conclusion that the accused had also caused hurt to Bhagwatiben the mother of the deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under sec. 323 I.P.C. The learn- ed additional Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default rigorous impri- sonment for one month for the offence punishable under sec. 304 Part I I.P.C. and to rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punish- able under sec. 324 I.P.C. the substantive sentences having been ordered to run concurrently. The State being dissatisfied with the acquittal of the accused for the offence of murder has come in appeal before this Court.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows :- One Balmukund was the son of prosecution witness Bhagwatiben Nandlal. He was residing with his mother at Bhavnagar. The accused was residing in the house opposite to the house of this Bhagwatiben. On 30-4-1982 at about 11-00 P.M. the accused went near the house of the deceased Balmukund and started giving abuses. Balmukund who was sleeping in his house asked the accused not to give abuses and stated that he was coming down. So saying he came down and before he came down Bhagvatiben also came down and she opened the Khadki door and came out and when Balmukund was about to come out of the Khadki door the accused caught hold of him and began to give successive knife blows to Balmukund. The accused took Balmukund while giving blows near a cot on which one Naniben was sleeping. Balmukund deshed against that cot and fell down. When Bhagwatiben intervene to save her son Balmukund the accused gave two knife blows to her. The accused then ran away from the scene of the incident. Balmukunds sister came there and she took Bhagwati- ben and Balmukund to the hospital. The complaint of Bhagwatiben was re- corded by the Police Officer who went to the hospital. Balmukund expired in the hospital during treatment . . . . .

(3.) The evidence of Dr. Buch shows that the incised wound which was found on the lithe finger of the left hand is possible if the injured handled the knife and tried to give a blow to another and the knife slipped while the abra- sions were possible by a hard and blunt substance. He admitted in cross- examination that injuries Nos. 2 and 3 are possible by a hard and blunt sub- stance like a log of wood. He also admitted that injury No. 1 was possible by a sharp-edge of the Muddamal Is. while the other injuries were possible by the remaining portion of the Is. Now there is no material on record to show that the deceased or anybody else had given any blows to the accused at the time of this incident. There is no such suggestion either in cross-exami- nation of the witnesses or in the statement of the accused. Injury No. 1 as stat- ed by Dr. Buch is possible if the accused handled the knife while giving blows to the deceased. We are inclined to say from the nature of the injury and the medical evidence on record that the said injury must have been caused to the accused while handling the knife This injury was again not a serious injury. The other two injuries might have been caused during the scuffle between the accused and the deceased. They are very minor abrasions which might have been caused to him when he was practically dragging the deceased upto the cot on which Naniben was lying. The injuries are so minor and so superficial that none would notice such injuries on the person of the accused. Injury No. 1 of course was a bleeding injury but the bleeding must not have been pro fuse looking to the nature of the injury and the art on which the injury was found was such that at the time of this incident Bhagwatiben will not notice that injury. Hence the evidence of Bhagwatiben cannot be discarded or doubt- ed because she does not admit that the had seen any such injuries on She per son of the accused. The prosecution will be bound to explain injuries on the person or the accused if they are on visible parts of the body and are of a serious nature. We are fortified in this Conclusion of ours by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan (1979) 2 Supre- me Court Cases 178. The Supreme Court observed that it becomes obligatory on the prosecution to explain the injuries so as to satisfy the Court as to the circumstances under which the occurrence originated. But before this obligation? is placed on the prosecution two conditions must be satisfied: (1) that the injuries on the person of the accused must be very serious and severe and not superficial (2) that it must the shown that these injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question There is nothing on record to show that all the injuries which were found on the person of the accused were caused to him at the the of this incident. So far as injury No. 1 is concerned it probably might have been caused at the there of this incident while handling the knife. But so far as the other two injuries are concerned there is nothing on record to show that they were caus- ed to him at the time of this incident. We may mention there even at the cost of repetition that no suggestion was made to any of the prosecution witnesses that the accused was given the blows by someone at the time of this incident. The accused also does not say a word in his statement that he was given blows by the deceased or by any prosecution witness. He even denies that he gave complaint at the police Station. In view of this the presence of injuries does not assist the accused in any way.