HARIJAN PALJI GOVIND Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Harijan Palji Govind, was the accused No.1 in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1982 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Bhavnagar, wherein he was charged along with one Harijan Khoda Kesha, for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Harijan Khoda Kesha, the accused No.2, was acquitted of the charge under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as the learned trial Judge, found that there was nothing to show that he was present at the relevant time, or that he played any part in the commission of the offence. The appellant accused No.1 was, however, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Having been aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conviction judgment of the trial Judge, dated 29.3.1982, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) The prosecution-case, shortly stated, is as under: The appellant was the father of deceased Bai Vali, and the original accused No.2 happen to be the nephew of the appellant-Bai Vali was a divorce and was staying with her father. It is alleged that during her stay with her father, she developed illicit relations with one Khoda Nanu (P.W. 13, Exh. 34). The appellant came to know about her relations with Khoda Nanu and he disapproved of them. It is also said that Bai Vali and Koda Nanu were to marry. One Mohmed Sattar (P.W. 9 Exh. 29), a neighbour of the appellant, informed him that Bai Vali had developed illicit relations with Khoda Nanu. The prosecution alleged that on the day of the incident (21.11.1981) at about 10.00 P.M. the appellant had told Mohmed Sattar that his help was required to do away with his daughter, Bal Vail Mohmed Sattar, however, refused to help him. The further prosecution case is that on 22.11.1981 the appellant went to the Police Station and informed P.S.O. Devshi Karsanbhai (P.W. 8, Exh. 26) that during the previous night while he was out of his house, his daughter was burnt and was lying there. This information was reported at about 8.30 A.M. The P.S.O. registered an entry about the accidental death and he handed over the inquiry to P.S 2. Mr. Hingrajiya of B Division Police Station. Mr. Hingrajiya went to the place of the incident and prepared an inquest report. He also sent the dead body for the post-mortem examination. He got the panchnama of the place of the incident drawn in the presence of witnesses. He suspected that this was a case of murder rather than of accidental death. He sought the opinion of the Medical Officer and found that there were three injuries on the person of the deceased. He himself thereafter lodged the First Information Report with B Division Police Station, Bhavnagar. He inquired into the matter and found that the deceased had illicit relations with Khoda Nanu, which illicit relations the appellant did not approve. He carried out the investigation after filing the First Information Report and on completion of the same he filed the charge sheet against both the accused in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, who committed both the accused for the Sessions Court.

(3.) The trial Judge found that Bai Vali had died a homicidal death. He also found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt that at the relevant time and place both the accused had the common intention of killing Bai Vali. Consequently, he acquitted the original accused No.2 from the charge of murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but so far as the appellant (Original accused No. 1) is concerned, he found the charges proves by the prosecution. Since the trial Judge found the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, we have examined the question meticulously and from diver e angles. We found that the trial Judge was very much impressed by the fact that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the motive on the part of the appellant to k ill his own daughter as well as by the fact that while the appellant informed the Police in the morning of 22nd November, 198 t about the death of his daughter by burns, he had suppressed the injuries suffered by the deceased on her person and by the further fact that the appellant had suffered burns on his loft hand. These broad aspects of the matter impressed the trial Judge and relying on them to a great extent, he convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. This is indisputably a case based on circumstantial evidence and it is a settled legal position that the prosecution must prove every link which points in the directions of the conviction of the accused. The trial Judge, with respect, has emphasised those links which point to the guilt of the appellant, but has not weighed with equal weight those circumstances which do not go to prove his guilt. We have, therefore, to consider and balance the different aspects of circumstantial evidence all of which do not point in the same direction. In the case of Deonandall Mishra v. The State of Bihar, Jagannadhadas, J. speaking for the Bench, observed as under: Where there is no eye-witness to the murder and the case against the accused depends entirely on circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof required to convict the accused on such evidence is that the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by these circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. It is further observed therein as under: It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. But in a case where the various links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the accused as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and he offers no explanation, which if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false exlanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain. We have kept before us the valuable guideline provided by the above observations of the Supreme Court.