HIRA BACHU VORA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhuj in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1984, Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 1985 is filed by original accused No.3; Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 1985 is filed by original accused No.5, Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 1985 is: filed by original accused No.1 and Criminal Appeal No. 527 of 1985 is filled by original accused Nos. 2, 4 and 6. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147 and 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) This is a case wherein accused No.1 along with accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 committed murder of his own son, Dharamshi. The prosecution case is that about a month and a half before the date of the incident accused No. 1 (father of deceased Dharamshi) married again. That was Dot liked by Dharamshi who was staying at Bombay. About ten days before the date of the incident, Dharamshi came with his wife to his native place. He first went to his fathers house, which was in their field, but as he did not like the second marriage of his father, he left it next day and stayed with Velji Bhikha, his cousin. After about three days he again went to their field and told his father-accused No.1 that he had not done a good thing by remarrying and that from that day onwards, their relations have come to an end. He also told accused No.1 to return, bangles of his wife. Accused No.1 promissed him to return the bangles after two days. Dharamshi, after two days, again went to the field of accused No.1 in the morning at about 6-00 a. m. Accused No.1 was working near the well. Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 were also present there. An exchange of words took place between accused No.1 and Dharamshi, Thereupon accused No.2 gave a stick blow on the face of Dharamshi. Accused No.6 held Dharamshi and placed his hands on the mouth of Dharamshi. Accused No.5 gave slaps to Dharamshi. Accused No.1 picked up a Dhindhu (also described as Ranp) (an agricultural implement being an iron blade with sharp edge on one side) and gave blows with it. Accused No.4 gave stick blows to him. As a result of these blows Dharamshi fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries after some time. Thereafter, the dead body of Dharamshi was removed in a nearby room. On that night, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 removed that dead body from that room and buried it in the field of accused No. 1. According to the prosecution, this incident was witnessed by two sons of accused No.1 viz. Megha and Sama. However, they did not disclose this fact to anyone else for a few days as they were threatened by their father with same consequences if they disclosed that fact to anyone else. The prosecution case is that few days thereafter, Velji met Megha and told him that Dharamshi was not seen since a few days and that he had already given such information to the police. Thereupon Megha told him that Dharamshi was killed by the accused and that his dead body was buried in the field. Velji, therefore, again went to the police station on the next day and lodged the First Information Report. During investigation, accused Nos. 1 to 3 had pointed out the place where the dead body of Dharamshi was buried by them. The other accused also discovered the weapons, which were used by them for committing the offence. After completing the investigation, the police charge-sheeted all the six accused. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were charged by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhuj for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147 and 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were charged for the offences punishable under section 201 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge, after appreciating prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 had committed murder of Dharamshi in prosecution of their common object; and therefore, convicted them as stated above. The learned trial Judge also believed the prosecution evidence and held that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had removed the dead body of Dharamshi with a view to destroy the evidence and screen the offenders; and, therefore, convicted each one of them for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) What is urged by the learned advocates for the appellants is that the evidence has not been properly appreciated by the learned, trial Judge; and on proper appreciation of evidence, none of the accused can be convicted for any of the offences alleged against them. For establishing the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of two eye witnesses viz. P.W. 3 Megha and P.W. 4 Sama. The learned trial Judge doubted the presence of P.W. 4 Sama at the time of the incident; and therefore, did not place reliance upon his evidence. The learned trial Judge based the conviction mainly on the evidence of P.W. 3 Megha as he was of the opinion that he is a reliable witness and that his evidence received corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 2 Velji and other independent circumstances established on the record of the case.