NIMESHKUMAR AMRSINH CHAVDA 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 April 30, 1997 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Sessions Case No.129 of 1996 by which the appellant is convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) for causing murder of his wife Ms.Bhavnaben, and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and fine of Rs.5,000=00, in default R.I. for two years.

(2.) The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under: The appellant was residing in Bhagyalaxmi Society, Petlad, with his father Amarsinh and others. Deceased Ms.Bhavnaben belonged to Utarsanda. The marriage of the appellant took place with the deceased on February 15, 1996 at Utarsanda. After marriage, the deceased was brought to her matrimonial home at Petlad and was accompanied by her cousin Gita Punambhai Parmar whose father was residing at Petlad. It may be stated that because of marriage, several relatives had collected in the house of the appellant and, therefore, an arrangement was made by the father of the appellant for separate stay of the appellant and the deceased in Bungalow No.51 of Bhagyalaxmi Society, which was quite adjoining to the house of the father of the appellant. On February 16, 1996, a marriage reception was arranged, which was attended by the relatives and the friends of the appellant as well as the deceased. The incident in question took place on October 18, 1996 in Bungalow No.51 of Bhagyalaxmi Society. On the day of incident at about 3.45 PM, Gita, who was in adjoining room occupied by the appellant and the deceased, heard shouts of the deceased. On hearing shouts, attention of Gitaben was drawn towards the room wherein the appellant was with the deceased. Through grill, Gitaben could see that the appellant was assaulting the deceased by means of wedge and/or chip of wood. Thereupon, Gitaben raised shouts and, therefore, people collected near the room of the appellant. The room which was closed from inside was got opened and people collected there found that Ms.Bhavnaben was bleeding profusely due to head injuries. Gitaben could also see that the appellant was present in the room. As Ms.Bhavnaben had lost consciousness, she was removed to Sayaji Hospital, Petlad, for treatment by Ramsinh Fulsinh, who is maternal uncle of the appellant. The Medical Officer on duty advised Ramsinh to remove injured Ms.Bhavnaben to Karamsad Hospital and, informed officer in charge of Petlad Police Station telephonically that Bhavnaben, who was injured by her husband, was brought to the hospital for further treatment. After making arrangement for ambulance van, Ramsinh approached the Medical Officer on duty at Sayaji Hospital, Petlad, to remove injured Bhavnaben to the hospital at Karamsad. The Medical Officer informed Ramsinh that it was useless to remove injured Bhavnaben to Karamsad Hospital as she had expired and asked Ramsinh to inform the parents of the deceased. A wireless message was conveyed by the Police Officer in charge of Petlad Town Police Station about the contents of Entry No.11 posted in Station Diary pursuant to telephonic message sent by Medical Officer of Petlad Civil Hospital, to Mr.H.C.Pathak, who was then Police Inspector of Petlad Police Station. On receipt of wireless message, P.I. Mr.Pathak first went to the Police Station and after verifying the contents of the entry, went to Sayaji Hospital, Petlad. On inquiry, he found that the deceased was brought to the hospital by Ramsinh, i.e. maternal uncle of the appellant, but no one was present at the hospital. He, therefore, went to the place of incident and posted guards to protect place of incident. He in the company of Ramsinh went back to the hospital and after ascertaining the facts, recorded First Information Report as narrated by Ramsinh. On the basis of First Information Report of Ramsinh, offence of murder was registered against the appellant. Mr.Pathak held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and forwarded a yadi to Medical Officer of Sayaji Hospital, Petlad, to get performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased by a panel of doctors. While bringing the deceased to the hospital, the clothes put on by complainant Ramsinh were bloodstained and, therefore, his bloodstained clothes were taken into custody under a panchnama. A photographer, i.e. Shanabhai Valjibhai, was also summoned who had taken photographs of place of incident and the deceased. The Investigating Officer drew panchnama of place of incident and recorded statements of those persons, who were found to be conversant with the facts of the case. On February 20, 1996, the Investigating Officer also recorded statements of parents of the deceased. On February 20, 1996, the appellant surrendered before the Police at about 14-30 hours and, therefore, panchnama of his person was prepared. During the course of interrogation, the appellant made disclosure statement pursuant to which bloodstained clothes put on by him were discovered in presence of panch-witnesses. Again, on February 22, 1996, the appellant made disclosure statement pursuant to which, knife used in commission of crime was recovered. It may be stated that it was noticed that the appellant had sustained injuries and, therefore, he was referred to Medical Officer for treatment on February 22, 1996. The incriminating articles seized during the course of investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) for analysis. On completion of investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Petlad, for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

(3.) As the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Nadiad, for trial where it was numbered as Sessions Case No.129 of 1996.