ARVIND LAKHMANBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant came to be charged for the offence of murder of Natubhai Kashiram by inflecting knife blows on the deceased Natubhai Kashiram on 5.9.1991 at about 15-00 hrs at village Tharad. The appellant was also charged of having committed offences punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Special Case No. 211 of 1995. The appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocity Act' for short) and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act. He was also imposed with a fine of Rs.500/- for all these offences and in default, was ordered to undergo RI for one year. The appellant also came to be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and came to be sentenced to undergo RI for 4 months and to pay fine of Rs.200/-,in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of set off was ordered to be given to the accused/appellant. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, present appeal is preferred. The prosecution case against the appellant was that the appellant suspected that deceased Natubhai Kashiram Pandya, a registered Medical practitioner, had developed illicit relations with the wife of the appellant. In this regard, they had some disputes also in past and therefore, deceased Natubhai had shifted his dispensary from village Ganatal to village Sui.

(2.) On 5th September, 1995, deceased Natubhai and his brother Manharbhai had left Sui village for going to Ambaji. They reached Tharad in a private Jeep and got down near Octroi office. Both of them had a cup of tea together and went to the bus stop for taking bus to Ambaji. At that time, the appellant approached them and told deceased Natubhai as to why he is keeping illicit relations with his wife. Deceased Natubhai denied to have any relations. The appellant, therefore, inflicted knife blows in chest and abdomen on deceased Natubhai. After he inflicted two-three blows, Natubhai started running; at that time, the appellant inflicted knife blow in back of the deceased also. Brother of the deceased Manharbhai, who was with Natubhai, raised shouts. The appellant, therefore, rushed towards him with knife and Manharbhai, therefore, escaped from the place. He went to Sui village, told his relatives about the incident and came back to Tharad in a Jeep. They found that the deceased had expired and police had arrived. Manharbhai, therefore, lodged an FIR with police. Offence came to be registered and investigation started.

(3.) At the end of the investigation, it was found by the Investigating Agency that there was sufficient material implicating the appellant and therefore, a chargesheet was filed against him before the JMFC, Tharad. Since the offences were triable exclusively by the court of Sessions and Special Court, case was committed to the Special Court. Charge was framed by the Special Court at Ex. 2. The accused/appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the Special Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in establishing all the charges against the appellant and recorded conviction. The appellant came to be sentenced as stated above. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for appellant submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution. Mr. Brahmbhatt, submitted that although, prosecution witnesses Manharbhai, Jethabhai and Amrabhai are projected as eye-witnesses to the incident, their presence at the place of incident is doubtful. Their conduct is unnatural and their version is self contradictory. These aspects have not been considered by the learned Special Judge. Mr. Brahmbhatt submitted that Manharbhai, who is brother of the deceased and who claims to have seen the incident, escaped from the place of incident, rather than, rescuing the victim. Even after escaping from the place, he does not seek anybody's help nor does he go to the police but goes to his village and thereafter, comes back with his relatives. The conduct is so un-natural that his presence is doubtful. Mr. Brahmbhatt submitted that other two persons, who are also eye-witnesses, do not speak of presence of Manharbhai at the place of incident and therefore, his deposition could not have been accepted by the trial court.