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. 2. 1 Charge was framed at Exh. 4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 2. 2 The trial Court found that the prosecution was successful in establishing the case against original accused No. 1-Baldevbhai Jayantilal Valand and therefore, ccnvicted him for the offence of murder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The trial Court also found that the prosecution could not establish case against the accused Nos. 2 and 3 viz. Ashok @ Lalo Baldevbhai and Virendra @ Chako baldevbhai beyond reasonable doubt and therefore recorded their acquittal. 2. 3 Aggrieved by the order of conviction, original accused No. 1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 774 of 1997 and is represented by learned Advocate, mr. Anandjivala. 2. 4 Aggrieved by the order acquitting original accused No. 2-Ashok @ Lalo baldevbhai and accused No. 3-Virendra @ chako Baldevbhai, the State has preferred criminal Appeal No. 1014 of 1997. The State is represented by learned A. P. P. , mr. Prachchak and learned Advocate, mr. Lakhani appears for respondents in that appeal i. e. for original accused Nos. 2 and 3.

(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.