RAJU @ RANESH AMRUTLAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the prosecution version that on 15th June, 1986 at about 9-30 p.m. accused No. 1 alongwith other three accused went at the residence of the injured witness Uttam alias Kunal. He went to meet Montu alias Diptam who is the brother of the injured witness. The appellant after going there called out for Montu under the pretext of having some talks with him. Kunal came out. He saw the four accused outside his house. He inquired from accused No. 1 as to why he was calling for Montu. Accused No. 1 replied that Montu was coming to their Chawl and was misbehaving with the girls of their Chawl and because of that they are blamed. He uttered that "we would not leave Montu living." The witness infomed accused No. 1 that his brother Montu was going for giving tuition and there was no question of misbehaving with girls. During this talk he saw Montu along with 2 or 3 friends coming from the Welfare Centre towards his house. At that time he informed the accused that even if his brother Montu continues with the tuition, what he can do. At that time accused Dinesh Jain gave thrusts on his cheeks. Thereafter accused No. 1 immediately brought out a knife from his pocket and gave a knife blow on his chest. He fell down. Thereafter he was removed to the hospital. FIR was lodged by PW 2 Ashok Ramchandra Shinde who is an eye-witness. The evidence of the injured witness is fully corroborated by the evidence of PW 2 Ashok Ramchandra Shinde Ex. 21, PW 5 Diptam alias Montu Exhibit 26 and PW 10 Ashok Shyamlal Sharma Exhibit 34. The evidence of injured witness is further corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W. 6 Dr. Rajesh Chandulal, R.M.O., L. G. Hospital, had examined the injured witness on 15-6-86 at 10-30 p.m. He has produced the injury certificate at Exhibit 28. He found the following injury:

(2.) The injured witness was thereafter transferred from L. G. Hospital to V. S. Hospital. In V. S. Hospital P.W. 7 Dr. Sureshbhai Parmar (Exhibit 29) had examined the witness on 16-6-1986. Because of the injury there was a cut in the lung of the witness. It is the say of the doctor that if timely medical treatment was not given to the witness, the injury was likely to cause death. Because of the aforesaid convincing evidence, the learned advocate for the appellant has rightly not submitted that the conviction of the appellant-accused is in any way erroneous or illegal.

(3.) However, it is the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant that the learned Judge ought not to have convicted the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but at the most the accused can be convicted under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. According to his submission, (1) there was no intention on the part of the appellant-accused to cause the death of the injured witness Kunal, (2) all of a sudden quarrel took place between the accused and the witness, and (3) only one blow was given by the accused.