GOVINDBHAI HATHISINH VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"), the only question with which we are confronted to examine and adjudicate upon is whether the appellant-accused No. 1 is qualified and is entitled to benefit of provisions of Exceptions 1 and/or 4 to Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C.") prescribing what is murder. The prosecution case, shortly, stated is that, on 8-10-1991, at about 8 p.m. when deceased Bhailal Vasava was at his place, original accused No. 3 Mathurbhai Jesingbhai Vasava started firing crackers as a result of which, the bullocks of Bhailal were frightened and as such, started jumping. Therefore, the deceased told accused No. 3 Mathur to stop cracker-firing. At that time. Ganpat Hathisinh, accused No 2 and Hathisinh Madhabhai, accused No. 4 were also present. They started quarrelling. On seeing this, Pravin son of the deceased Bhailal ran to his elder brother Ramesh's place and informed him about the incident. That is how, Ramesh and his wife Kapila, immediately, went to the venue where the quarrel was going on.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, accused No. 2 Ganpat Vasava had given a stick blow on the head of deceased Bhailal and the deceased had, as such, reciprocated it with a piece of brickbat to accused No. 4 Hathisinh. Thereafter. complainant Ramesh, his wife Kapila and the deceased went to Nagjibhai's place to inform the police on telephone. In the meantime, the appellant-accused No. 1 went there where the deceased was standing outside - far from the house of Nagjibhai and he started giving successive blows with a sword on the person of deceased Bhailal which culminated into his death.

(3.) Upon complaint of the son of the deceased, Ramesh, Exh. 13, the offence came to be registered against the appellant and three other accused persons who, upon investigation by the police, were sent up for trial in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1992 for the .offences punishable under Sees. 302 and 323 read with Sec. 114 of the I.P.C. and in addition to that, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also charged for the offence punishable under Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act.