BACHUBHAI MOHANBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants who are father and son were facing charge of murder in Sessions case No. 22 of 1987 conducted before the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli. The prosecution case is that on the night of 13-14th of November, 1986 between 7.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m., the accused had killed Ravjibhai Nanjibhai and thrown his dead body into the well of a nearby field. From the aforesaid brief description of the incident, it is quite obvious that the case of the prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, which, in our opinion has been very ably summarised and enumerated in para 9 of the judgment of the Trial Court, which in the paper book is to be found at page Nos. 264-265. It is an admitted position that the deceased had a land transaction with the accused appellant No. 1 and there was an outstanding amount payable by the accused-appellant No. 1 to the deceased. That is circumstance No. 1. The second is that the deceased though belonging to some other village, was in fact, on the date of the event, in the village of the accused-appellant. No. 3 is that both the accused-appellant No. 1 and the deceased were last seen together by the witness. Next circumstance is that after the event on the night of 13th November and 14th November, 1986, the dead body was found from the well of one Gobarbhai Thakersi's field. It. is not in dispute that death of Ravjibhai Nanjibhai was homicidel and was caused by head injury which had proved fatal. His entire skull was crushed and there was corresponding damage to the brain as well.

(2.) No. 6 is a circumstance which is peculiar to this case, namely cart track was found leading from the field of the accused of the said well from which dead body was found. The next circumstance is, there was similar grass found near the said well which is to be found in the field of the accused. Blood stains were found in the field of the accused. Blood stains were also found in drops all along cart track from the field of the accused to that of well of Gobarbhai Thakershi. One more circumstance important in the judgment is at item No. 13 of that paragraph where the shirt and "Chorni" i.e., lower garment both were found blood stained and that they belonged to the accused. Other circumstances relate to the so called discovery of the axe, seizure of cart said to be belonging to the accused, bullocks etc.

(3.) With regard to seizure of the cart, bullocks etc., the prosecution could not succeed in making out circumstances because the witness Manubhai happened to be the husband of the sister of the wife of the accused and therefore, he was not examined.