GOKAJI SOMAJI KOLI THAKORE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 27. 07. 2004 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Deesa ('learned trial Judge', for short) in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1999. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Judge was pleased to convict the appellant herein, who was original accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ('ipc', for short), awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment ('ri', for short) for 10 years and fine Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo RI for 2 months. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under:-On dated 19. 8. 1997, at about 11 a. m. , in the outskirts of Village Virna, the accused inflicted knife-blow over left lower part of the chest of injured Sardarji Valaji. In connection with this incident, First Information Report was lodged by Bhagwanbhai Dayabhai, Exh. 18. The police commenced investigation and recorded statement of relevant witnesses. The weapon, knife, was recovered in presence of panchas. Necessary medical evidence was collected and after completion of the police investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deesa for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Palanpur, which was transferred for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Deesa.

(2.) THE learned trial Judge framed charge at Exh. 7 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Since the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. After the conclusion of the evidence, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein he generally denied all the allegations leveled against him and stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in this case. After appreciating the evidence on record, and hearing arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides, the learned trial Judge, by virtue of the impugned judgment and order, convicted the appellant - accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and awarded sentence, as stated above. On behalf of the appellant - accused, learned advocate Shri Buddhbhatti submitted that so far as involvement of the accused in the offence is concerned, there is no dispute. However, the learned trial Judge erred in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. It is submitted that considering the overall evidence on record, it clearly transpires that the injury sustained by injured Sardarji Valaji was not a grievous injury or even the injury was not such, which may cause death in ordinary course of nature. That therefore, in the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge erred in not properly appreciating the medical evidence on record. That thus, on the side of the appellant, the only defence is regarding the nature of offence said to have been committed by the appellant. It is therefore, submitted that considering the medical evidence on record, in form of depositions of three Medical Officers and the medical certificates, the appellant - accused can be said to have committed only the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. Learned APP Mr. Shah for the respondent - State, vehemently opposed this appeal and the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Buddhbhatti for the appellant and submitted that considering the overall evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is made out and was rightly convicted for the said offence. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal be dismissed.

(3.) CONSIDERING the aforesaid submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Buddhbhatti, on behalf of the appellant and especially when the involvement of the appellant in the offence is not seriously disputed, the only question which is required to be replied in this appeal is pertaining to the nature of offence said to have been committed by the appellant. However, considering the depositions of complainant Bhagwanbhai, Exh. 18 and the injured Sardarji Valaji, Exh. 13, the involvement of the accused in the incident is clearly established. Considering the depositions of Dr. Vinaykumar Vishvnathlal, Exh. 10, it transpires that he was the first Medical Officer, who examined the injured Sardarji Valaji. According to his deposition and the medical certificate, Exh. 11 issued by him, there was an incised wound of 4 cm x 2 cm on left side lower part of chest. According to him, he cannot say whether the injury was simple injury or grievous injury. He was referred to Palanpur Civil Hospital. Considering the deposition of Dr. Jagania, Exh. 20, it is revealed that the injured was referred to him and he examined injured and according to him, there was stab wound on the left side lower region of chest. That the patient was conscious. The injury can be caused by sharp cutting instrument. He referred the patient to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Considering deposition of Dr. Rita Shah, Exh. 53, while she was on duty, she examined the injured on 20. 8. 1997. According to her deposition, the injured sustained stab wound, admeasuring 4 cm X 2 cm over left lower chest and it was cavity deep. She deposed that x-rays were taken and considering x-ray reports, no fracture was detected. That the patient was discharged on 20. 8. 1997. In her cross-examination on behalf of the accused, she admitted that in her certificate, Exh. 55, it is not clarified as to whether the injury was simple or grievous. For that she assigns the reason that as the condition of the patient was normal, therefore, it is not mentioned in the certificate as to whether the injury was simple or grievous. She stated that in case of timely treatment, the injury may not endanger human life. She further categorically admitted that the injury was not such, which may endanger human life or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.