LAWS(GJH)-2006-4-10

BACHUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On April 03, 2006
BACHUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, at Navsari, on 19th April, 1997, in Sessions Case No. 70 of 1996, recording conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and ordering him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) The facts of the case are that, on 10th January, 1996, at about 14-30 hours, deceased-Laxmanbhai Gulabbhai Patel was going to his field in company of one Bhanabhai Gopalbhai. The deceased and the present appellant had some previous disputes regarding irrigation of fields. While the deceased was going to his field in a bullock-cart on the outskirts of village Kukeri of Taluka Chikhli, appellant-Bachubhai Chhaganbhai, allegedly rushed with an iron hammer and inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased. As a result of the blow, the deceased sustained furniture of the skull and collapsed on-the-spot. Bhanabhai Gopalbhai, who had witnessed the incident was scared and fled away from the spot, and immediately, informed Manubhai Gulabbhai, brother of the deceased, who in turn, rushed to the spot to find that his brother was seriously injured, was bleeding and was unconscious. He, therefore, took steps to take the injured to hospital in a vehicle. It is the case of the prosecution that, on the way to hospital, the injured regained consciousness and stated that he was assaulted upon by the appellant-accused with a hammer. Ultimately, the injured Laxmanbhai, succumbed to the injuries.

(3.) Learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, for the appellant submitted that the trial Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence and recording conviction. He submitted that the first informant, Manubhai Gulabbhai, is the brother of the deceased, and is therefore, an interested witness, He further submitted that the first informant is not an eye-witness. The witness did speak about the deceased having made an oral dying declaration before him implicating the appellant, but this version is doubtful, as can be seen from the deposition of Dr. Ramchandra Patil, Mr. Vyas, therefore, submitted that the evidence of the first informant, Manubhai Gulabbhai, therefore, ought not to have been given any credence.