STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VINOD PARSHOTTAM @ NATHALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-State of Gujarat has filed Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1996 under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC" for brevity] challenging the judgment and order dated 13th Nov. 1995 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1994 acquitting the respondents-accused of the offence with which they were charged, and whereas, Criminal Revision Application No. 47 of 1996 has been preferred by the petitioner-original complainant under Sections 397 and 401 Crimial P.C. against the very order of acquittal.

(2.) As per the case of prosecution, complainant Mangaldas Ladakbhai Mangi, father of his deceased son-Parshottam, lodged a complaint in respect of murder of his son in the broad day light on 17th March 1994 at the hands of the respondents herein.

(3.) The genesis of grudge against the deceased was that the deceased accompanied one lady named Zaverben, her husband-Laljibhai Vashrambhai and Chaturbhuj Devji for lodging a police complaint against the respondents herein, who allegedly molested the said Zaverben on 9th March 1994 during night hours by the respondents herein, by forcibly entering into her house and thereby making illegal demand when her husband was not available at home. Thus, on 17th March 1994, Zaverben, her husband Laljibhai Vasharambhai, the deceased Parshottambhai Mangalbhai and Chaturbhuj Devji went to lodge a complaint in that regard in the auto rickshaw of the witness-Pravinbhai Muljibhai at around 2:30 O'clock. While they were returning after lodging the complaint, the accused persons, keeping enmity for lodging of the said complaint and in furtherance of their common intention to kill the deceased Parshottambhai Mangalbhai and to cause grievous injuries to the others, tried to stop rickshaw at around 3 O'Clock, near the cross roads of Digvijay Plot, Sheri No- 58/63 in Jamnagar. The said auto-rickshaw was driven by Pravinbhai Muljibhai, witness Chaturbhuj Devji was sitting adjacent to him on the front seat, Zaverben and Lilabhai [husband and wife] and deceased Parshottambhai were sitting on back seat. As the rickshaw slowed down, accused Vinod Nathalal, in furtherance of their common intention, stood with a naked sword. Thereafter, with an intention to stop the rickshaw, he aimed the sword near throat of rickshaw driver Pravinbhai. As Pravinbhai stopped the rickshaw and asked to keep away the sword, accused Vinod inflicted a sword blow on his hand and caused injury on left hand fingers. Thus, the accused have committed a punishable offence u/s 324 and 34 of IPC. Further, to accomplish the above common intention, accused Ramesh Savji gave a knife blow on the left side of stomach of the deceased Parshottambhai Mangalbhai, when he was trying to come out of the rickshaw. Thereafter, when the deceased Parshottambhai Mangalbhai ran towards the market in Sheri No. 63, the accused Vinod, armed with sword and the accusedRamesh, Madhavji and Parshuram Kevalram armed with knives ran after Parshottambhai Mangalbhai and caught him. Thereafter, the accused inflicted repeated blows with their weapons and caused death of the deceased Parshottambhai. Thus, all the accused have committed an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of Penal Code read with Sec. 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act by violating Notification of prohibition to keep arms which was in force in the Jamnagar district, by possessing deadly weapons.