MAHENDRAKUMAR KANTILAL VYAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant came to be tried by City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1999 for murder of Ketankumar Rasiklal Patel allegedly committed by him on 08th September, 1998 around 9.15 a.m. at Siddheshwar Mahadev Chawl, Jubilee Mill Compound, Ahmedabad by inflicting dagger blows. The Trial Court recorded conviction by judgment and order dated 28th September, 1999 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The Trial Court, however, found him not guilty of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act and recorded his acquittal.

(2.) The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the appellant Mahendra Kantilal Vyas was in service of deceased Ketankumar Rasiklal Patel. The deceased had arranged for purchase of a television set for the accused from Rajdeep Electronics, Ahmedabad and had arranged for a loan by virtue of which the appellant was supposed to pay a monthly instalment of Rs. 109/-. The instalments were recovered by deceased Ketankumar from the remuneration payable to the appellant for some time. However, after some time, the appellant left the job with deceased Ketankumar and discontinued paying the instalments. On this count, the deceased used to remind him off and on and used to make demand. This ultimately led to a strained relationship between the two.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Buddhbhatti for the appellant submitted that although the incident has occurred in a thickly populated area, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. Mr. Buddhbhatti also submitted that as per the prosecution case, the Muddamal dagger contained fingerprint of the accused which is a chance fingerprint only of the ring finger. Mr. Buddhbhatti submitted that the possibility of this fingerprint having been imprinted at the time of discovery cannot be ruled out. He also submitted that find of only one fingerprint and that too of ring finger would rule out the possibility of the dagger having been handled by the accused for the purpose of causing fatal injuries. There should have been more fingerprints in respect of at least the thumb and/or other fingerprints of the palm. Mr. Buddhbhatti, therefore, submitted that when the case hangs on such circumstantial evidence, this link gets significance. Mr. Buddhbhatti submitted further that motive is not properly established. For an instalment of Rs. 109/- a month, a person would not commit a murder and, therefore, this motive is too futile to accept as a motive for committing murder. Mr. Buddhbhatti, therefore, submitted that in absence of any eye-witness and in light of the fact that chain of circumstance is not complete, the appeal may be allowed and the judgment and sentence rendered by the Trial Court may be set aside.