STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAJU @ AMRISH HARCHARAN THAKOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 27.4.1992 rendered in Sessions Case No.69 of 1991 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur has acquitted the accused.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 30.6.1990 at about 7.00 p.m. accused Raju @ Amrish Harcharan Thakor has given knife blow to deceased Manubhai Nanjibhai with an intention to cause his death near the house of witness Ayeshaben Jusafbhai. As a result of the said incident, Manubhai has expired and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After registration of the First Information Report, investigating officer carried out the investigation, and filed charge sheet against the accused. Learned Magistrate committed the case to the learned Sessions Court. The charge came to be framed at Exh.3. Prosecution has examined various witnesses with a view to prove the case against accused Raju. P.W.1 Bhavanbhai Nagjibhai Bharwad was examined to prove the inquest panchnama. Prosecution thereafter examined P.W. 2 Dr. Dipak Champaklal Jagani, who has carried out the postmortem of deceased Manubhai. Said witness has narrated about the multiple injuries received by deceased Manubhai. There were five injuries sustained by the deceased as stated in the postmortem report in column No. 17. Said witness further stated that the cause of death of Manubhai was massive hemorrhage leading to shock and death caused by stab wounds. It is stated that injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. During cross -examination of the said witness, he has stated that injuries No.2 to 6 were simple in nature, and so far as injury No.1 is concerned, said injury could not be caused with muddamal weapon knife.

(3.) PROSECUTION has examined complainant -Nanjibhai Kanjibhai Aayar, father of the deceased Manubhai, whose deposition is recorded at Exh.16. Said witness is not an eye witness. However, said witness has immediately gone to the place of incident when he received the information from Hajibhai that the accused had given knife blow to Manubhai. The said witness has further stated in his deposition that when he reached the placed of incident, at that time, Manubhai had informed him that son of Harcharan, Raju has given knife blows to him. Said witness has thereafter taken his son to hospital situated at Bavla Cross Roads, and from the said hospital, Manubhai was brought to Vadilal Hospital. However, before they reached Vadilal Hospital, Manubhai succumbed to the injuries. Said witness has given First Information Report before the concerned police station. Prosecution has thereafter examined witness P.W.4 -Muktaben Nanjibhai, mother of the deceased, whose deposition is recorded at Exh.17. She is not an eye witness to the incident. However, she came to know about the incident when her husband has informed her at about 7.45 p.m. Prosecution is mainly relying upon the deposition given by P.W.8 -Ayeshaben Jusafbhai Exh.22. Said witness is projected as an eye witness. During her deposition, she has stated that Manubhai came to her residence and asked for a glass of water, therefore, she gave water to him. Manubhai was sitting on the cot, and said witness was sitting beside Manubhai. At that time, accused came with a knife and gave blows on the chest of Manubhai. Therefore, she has shouted and the accused left the place of incident. At that time, witness -Hajibhai came there, and she asked him to call the father of Manubhai. Hence, Hajibhai went to call the father of the deceased -Manubhai, i.e. complainant -Nanjibhai Kanjibhai Aayar. During her cross -examination, Ayaeshaben admitted that she is having weak eye sight. Age of said witness is 70 years. She also admitted during her cross -examination that her son Hussen was serving with Nanjibhai, and they are having good family relation with Nanjibhai. Prosecution has thereafter examined P.W. 9 - Vitthalbhai Fulabhai Prajapati at Exh.23. Said witness is a panch witness of panchnama of recovery of clothes of the deceased as well as the accused, and also signed on the discovery panchnama of muddamal weapon. Said witness has stated that muddamal weapon was discovered at the instance of Raju. The prosecution has also examined P.W.7 -Karsanbhai Chakabhai Bharvad at Exh.20 Said witness was also stated to be an eye witness. However, he has not supported the case of the prosecution, and therefore he was declared hostile. On the basis of documentary as well as oral evidence produced before the learned Sessions Court, it was of the opinion that prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore acquitted the accused for the charges levelled against him. The State has, therefore, preferred this appeal.