VALAND BALDEV JAYANTILAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.774 of 1997 came to be tried alongwith respondents in Criminal Appeal No.1014 of 1997 for offence of murder of one Bhadresh Chimanlal Valand allegedly committed by them at about 10:00 p.m. in Bazaar Area of Dhragandhra on 10th June, 1991. According to the prosecution, deceased-Bhadresh and appellant Baldev are cousins. Baldev runs a hair cutting saloon. A few months prior to the incident, Bhadresh had also started a hair cutting saloon in the same area and there was professional rivalry between the two. On the day of incident at about 8:00 p.m., there was some quarrel between the two, but because of intervention of relatives, the dispute was settled. However, after about 2 hours therefrom at about 10:00 p.m. when the deceased was on his way to home after closing the shop, he was intercepted by the original accused persons. There was an altercation and ultimately it is alleged that respondents Ashok @ Lalo and Virendra @ Chako caught hold of the deceased and appellant Baldev inflicted a blow on the deceased in chest with a sharp edged weapon initially reported to be a knife, but later on found to be a trident of a shape very similar to a knife. After the assault the trio went away. The incident was reported to the father of the deceased, who rushed to the spot, inquired of deceased as to how the incident had occurred and the deceased told him the details of the incident about the names of the assailants, etc. The incident was seen by one Bharat Anantray Vyas. The deceased was taken in an auto-rickshaw to the hospital where he was given treatment and was admitted as injured patient. However, his condition worsened gradually and was referred to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. During this time, the Police was informed and Police arrived at the hospital. Executive Magistrate was summoned to record dying declaration which he did. The statement of the deceased was also recorded by police.

(2.) F.I.R. of Chandulal Bhagvanji was recorded and offence was registered. The Investigating Agency after collecting material found that the material was sufficient to prosecute the assailants and, therefore, filed charge-sheet in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Dhragandhra. As the offence was triable exclusively by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Surendranagar and Sessions Case No.109 of 1991 came to be registered.

(3.) Learned Advocate, Mr.Anandjiwala, for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.774 of 1997 submitted that the version given by the eye-witnesses to the incident is not reliable. Eye-witness, Chandulal Bhagvanji gives different story in examination in chief and in cross-examination. Likewise, Prosecution Witness No.6, Bharat Anantray Vyas (Exh.23) who also claims to be eye-witness has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.