RAMNATH GURU MAHESHNATH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, which is filed under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged his conviction under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, vide judgment and order dated July 12, 1990, in Sessions Case No.67 of 1989.

(2.) The original informant Nathubha Ajubha Jadeja is the resident of village Vadali. Just near the village, there is a temple known as Vihot Mataji-nu Mandir. In the precinct of the temple, there is a room wherein mendicants used to reside. Maheshnath Guru Mangalnath was the Mahant of the temple and the appellant was his disciple, whereas deceased Sanjaynath was the disciple of the appellant. It may be stated that Maheshnath, who was the Mahant of the temple, was aged as well as blind and, therefore, the appellant was looking after the affairs of the temple. The original informant used to visit the temple daily for offering worship. The incident in question took place on March 31, 1989. At about 9.30 p.m. the informant had gone to the temple for darshan purpose. When the original informant passed by the room occupied by Maheshnath and others, he learnt that Maheshnath and Sanjaynath were assaulted by some people and Sanjaynath was lying unconscious and bleeding. The injured were removed to Rajkot Civil Hospital in a Matador for treatment. However, during the course of treatment, Sanjaynath succumbed to his injuries. Initially, on the complaint of the informant, C.R. No. 66/89 was registered by Rajkot Police Station for the offences punishable under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On the death of Sanjaynath, the complaint was registered for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. C.T. Sonara, the then Police Inspector, Rajkot Police Station, investigated the first information lodged by Mr. N.A. Jadeja. The investigating officer held inquest on the dead body of Sanjaynath and recorded statement of witnesses, who were found conversant with the facts of the case. Thereafter, dead body was sent for post-mortem. On April 3, 1989, the investigating officer arrested the appellant and another accused Kalidas Guru Bhagwandas under a panchanama which was prepared in presence of panchas. During the interrogation, it transpired that the appellant had addressed a chit on October 31,1989 to accused Kalidas informing him that the work was to be carried out and completed at 8 p.m. on October 31, 1989. In view of the information willingly given by accused Kalidas, the chit written by the appellant to accused Kalidas was discovered in presence of panchas under a panchnama which was prepared under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, The investigating officer also obtained specimen writing of the appellant in presence of panchas. The chit recovered at the instance of accused Kalidas and the specimen writing of the appellant were sent to the hand-writing expert for opinion. The other articles, which were seized during course of investigation, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. On completion of investigation, the appellant and another accused Kalidas were chargesheeted in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot, for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 324, 120B read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) As offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by a court of sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial, where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 67/89. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed necessary charge against the accused at Exh.1. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, examined (1) Dr. Deepak Shantilal Mehta, P.W. No.1, Exh.5, (2) Nathubha Ajubha Jadeja, P.W. No.2, Exh.10, (3) Dr. Govindbhai Khodabhai , P.W. No.3, Exh.13, (4) Aniruddhsinh Mahavirsinh, P.W. No.4, Exh.15, (5) Prahladsinh Ramsinh, P.W. No.5, Exh.16, (6) Manohar Mohanlal, P.W. No.6, Exh.17, (7) Maheshnath Guru Mangaldas, P.W. No.7, Exh.49,(8) Danabhai Dhunabhai,P.W. No.8, Exh.50, (9) Jitendra Vinodbhai, P.W. No.9, Exh.51, (10), Kesarben Khimabhai, P.W. No.10, Exh.52. (11) Vashrambhai Naranbhai, P.W. No.11, Exh.57, (12) Bhupatbhai Kalabhai, P.W. No.12, Exh.58, (13) Mohanbhai Jadavbhai, P.W. No.13, Exh.59, (14) Shaktisinh Natubha Jadeja, P.W. No.14, Exh.60. (15) Rajubhai Mohanbhai, P.W. No.15, Exh.63, (16) Ramsingh Ranjitsinh, P.W. No.16, Exh.64, (17) Pravinbhai Chhaganbhai Ratandas P.W. No.17, Exh.66, (18) Pravindbhai Haribhai, P.W. No.18, Exh 68, (19) Jeevanlal Bhanjibhai, P.W. No.19, Exh.70. (20) Jatubha Kashubhai Gohil, P.W. No.20, Exh.72, (21) Mastram Odhavdas, P.W. No.21, Exh.75, (22) Balubha Dholatsinh Jadeja, P.W. No.22, Exh.78. and (23) Chimanlal Trikamlal , P.W. No.23, Exh.83, to prove its case against the accused. The prosecution also produced documentary evidence such as post-mortem notes of the deceased, first information report lodged by Nathubha, chit written by the appellant to accused Kalidas, inquest report, panchanama of place of occurrence, report received from the hand-writing expert as well as the Forensic Science Laboratory, etc. to substantiate the charge framed against the accused. After recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Judge questioned the accused generally on the case and recorded statements under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In their statements, the accused denied the case of the prosecution, but did not lead any evidence in defence.