VISHAL RAJENDRA TRIVEDI II Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of indeed very great importance and unprecedented also in the known annals of decided cases has cropped up for our consideration in this appeal. The said question is What indeed is the evidentiary value of that prosecution witness on whose evidence indisputably (alongwith other pieces of evidence) the trial court recorded the order of conviction and sentence against the accused under Section 302 of the I.P.Code who now comes before the court allegedly making clean breast of his conscience saying that while giving evidence before the trial court he in a state of utter unenviable helpless self pitied embarrassing condition suppressed the real and material facts of the case having direct bearing upon two vital questions ultimately determining firstly the nature of the alleged offence committed by the appellant-accused and accordingly necessary corollary to the same secondly the quantum of sentence pursuant thereto ? That to give an indication as to who is the said witness it may be stated that he is none other than the father of the appellant-accused himself who has confessed before this Court to have been the sole cause for victimising the appellant-accused charging him as having committed the murder of his second wife Lata. And the evidence which he admits to have suppressed and which is projected to be the real unvarnished truth before this court is firstly that Lata his second wife was of easy virtue having illicit relations with one Rajubhai and was also having the cankerous nature and secondly the same was not liked by the appellant-Vishal and the suppressed pent up provocation reaching the flashing point one day drew him blank to stabbing her to death Under the circumstances what ultimately we are called upon to decide is Whether a witness having given one set of evidence before the trial court on oath resulting into the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 of the I.P.Code if he not exactly turns around but at the same time gives some material additional facts quite relelvant and pertinent having ultimate bearing on the complexion and nature of the offence and on resultant awarding of sentence can he be said to be a witness hostile to the prosecution and if not firstly how indeed his evidence is required to be tested and reappreciated and secondly what indeed is the evidentiary value of such a witness ? This introductory preface to examine the most important question cropped up with utmost care and circumspection arises in the background and context of firstly the evidence led before the trial court and secondly thereafter before this court by re-examining PW 4 Rajendra Trivedi as Court Witness No. 1 is stated in detail as under:

(2.) Prosecution case including that of evidence of P.W.4-Rajendra Ramanlal before the Sessions Court. The prosecution case as briefly summed up in charge Exh. 2 against the accused is to the effect that the alleged incident wherein Vishal Rajendra boy aged 18 stabbed his step-mother Lata to death by giving her three successive knife blows outside their house situated in Gokulnagar Society at Dakor took place on 18-7-1993 at about 12.00 noon. The eye-witnesses to the alleged incident were two namely (1) P.W.2 Rachna Rajendra; and (2) P.W.5 Prithvik Rajendra (a child witness aged 12 as corroborated by P.W.4-Rajendra Ramanlal Trivedi and the medical evidence brought on the record. On the basis of this allegation FIR Exh. 9 was filed by P.W.2 Rachna Rajendra which was recorded by P.W.10 P.S.I. Dashrathbhai Parmar of Dakor Police Station on the very day within the matter of hours only. 2.1 At trial the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as according to him he was falsely implicated. No specific defence was raised while availing the opportunity to explain away the circumstances appearing against him. However on perusing the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses it appears that the relations between the appellant-accused and Lata stood quite strained and embittered because one Rajubhai was visiting the house even in absence of his father PW 4 Rajendra and because of that there were constant quarrels on the one hand between appellant Vishal and Lata and on the other between appellant Vishal and Rajendra and also inter se between the three. This part of the case is admitted by all the prosecution witnesses.

(3.) It appears that as the appellant accused was unable to engage advocate to defend his case before the trial court he was given free legal aid. The trial court accepting and relying upon the prosecution evidence by its judgment and order dated 28-11-1994 convicted accused Vishal for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default to undergo further S.I. for 15 days giving rise to the present appeal.