STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHARWAD VADVA RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents and two others were tried before the learned Sessions Judge, Amreti in Sessions Case No. 29 of 1983 for offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and other offences, on the allegation that in furtherance of their common intention, original accused no. 1. Bharwada Kadva Rana caused the death of one Bhikha Jeram, while original accused no. 3 voluntarily caused hurt to Savji Bhavan and original accused no. 5, volontarily caused hurt to Gordhan Manji. The learned trial Judge, on appreciating the evidence reached the conclusion that original accused no. 1 was responsible for causing the death of Bhikha Jeram. He reached the conclusion that the offence committed by him was one punishable under section 304, Part-I, I.P.C, and accordingly convicted him of the same and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years. He acquitted the other accused of all the offences. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge, the State of Gujarat has filed this appeal challenging the acquittal of original accused no. 1 of the offence of murder and challenging the acquittal of the other accused.

(2.) The facts of this case alleged by the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows: On 12-3-1983 at about 7.30 A.M. the deceased Bhikha Jeram was going on his motorcycle. He went to the place of prosecution witness Savji Bhavan and at that time the present respondents and the two other accused who were tried before the Trial Court went near them speaking abuses. Accused no. 3 gave blow with an axe to Savji Bhavan on the nose while accused no. 1. Kadva Rana gave a blow with an axe on the head of Bhikha Jeram whereby Bhikha fell down. One Jayanti Popati, nephew of Savji came there on a bicycle. A car was called for taking Bhikha Jeranl and in the meantime, accused nos. 3 and 5 came there and caused injuries to Gordhan Manjl. Bhikha was then taken name and one Persottam Harji who happens to be the uncle of Bhikha after having a talk with Bhikha gave information to the police. Bhikha succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against these three respondents and two others who were tried before the learned Sessions Judge. Amreli and except accused no. 1 rest were acquitted, while accused no. 1. was convicted of the offence punishable under section 304, Part I, I.P.C. as stated in the beginning.

(3.) The learned AddI. Public Prosecutor Mr. K.J. Vaida, who appears on behalf of the State took us through the judgment of the learned Trial Judge and also through the material evidence on record. We may mention here that Savji Bhavan is the prosecution witness who has seen the incident. There is no other witness even according to the prosecution who witnessed this incident. The evidence of this Savji Bhavan, P.W. 6, ex. 35, is discussed by the learned trial Judge at Para 16, onwards. He has discussed the evidence in details and shown as to how Savji Bhavan cannot be depended upon. We entirely agree with the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Judge in his judgment at Paras. 16 to 22 for reaching the conclusion that Savji cannot be depended upon. The learned AddI. Public Prosecutor. Mr. Vaidya was unable to satisfy us that the learned trial Judge committed any error in appreciating the evidence of this witness and in reaching the conclusion that no reliance can be placed upon this witness. The learned trial Judge has discussed as to what type of witness Savji is, apart from his relations with the deceased. The conclusion reached by the learned Trial Judge as regard this witness is unassailable and we agree with his conclusion that no reliance could have been placed upon this Savji.