LAWS(GJH)-2007-2-208

HARI @ PRAKASH RAMDAS KOLHE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On February 08, 2007
Hari @ Prakash Ramdas Kolhe Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant came to be tried and convicted for the offence of murder of Shakuntala alias Mangala, allegedly, committed by him on 27th July, 1996 around 8.15 P.M. on a public road near Jamatkhana, near Karimabad Society, at Surat, by inflicting knife injury. He came to be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - and, in default thereof, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months, by Sessions Court, Surat, vide judgment and order dated 26th November, 1998, rendered in Sessions Case No.267 of 1996.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the appellant and deceased -Shakuntala alias Mangala were staying together as husband and wife. The appellant wanted to go to his hometown whereas the deceased was against that and there were quarrels between the two on this count. On the day of the incident, deceased -Shakuntala was found lying on road in an injured condition by witness Sameer Barkatali Veerani (Exhibit 27) and his brother, Nazeer Barkatali Veerani, when they were passing by the area. The victim told them to take her to hospital. She said that she was having pain in the stomach. In the meantime, Saif Shirajali Kapadia came there and then he brought an auto -rickshaw. The lady then occupied the rickshaw and Sameer Veerani and Saif Kapadia followed her on scooter. They got her admitted to Civil Hospital. While she was at the hospital, she told in Hindi "Mera Marad'ne Mujeh Mara Hai". The lady was given treatment, but, ultimately, succumbed to the injury. Simultaneously, police was informed and a First Information Report was registered. On registration of the crime, investigation was started and the police, having found sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the offence, filed charge sheet in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Case No.267 of 1996 came to be registered.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate, Ms. Sadhana Sagar, appearing for the appellant submitted that the case is of circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence on the occurrence. Ms. Sagar submitted that the oral dying declaration of the deceased is given undue weightage by the Trial Court overlooking the fact that in the dying declaration, the deceased had disclosed that her "Marad", i.e. her husband, had caused the injury to her. She submitted that it has come in evidence that the deceased was formerly married to another person and not the appellant. The appellant, therefore, is not the husband of the deceased. The deceased has not named the appellant anywhere. There were witnesses, who were projected to be supporting the prosecution, but have, in fact, at the time of the trial, not supported the prosecution case. Name of the deceased in the medical case papers is indicated as Shakuntala alias Mangala, wife of Prakash, whereas name of the appellant is Hari alias Prakash and nowhere it is brought on record by the prosecution that the appellant also carries an alias name. Ms. Sagar, therefore, submitted that the prosecution cannot be said to have established a complete chain of circumstances to link the appellant with the offence. She, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court committed an error in recording conviction and, therefore, the appeal may be allowed.