STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MADHAVJI KHIMJI SHINGALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 16/08/1990. Laxmiben. wile of Vikram Khimji. came to be murdered between 12-55 and 14-00 hours in her residential house bearing R.B.I. Quarter No. C-33. near Subhash Bridge area of 'Ahmedabad. She was staying with her husband-Vikram Khimji. who happens to be appellant No. 2 before this Court. The couple had two children, who had gone K) school at that time. Accused No. 2 is serving with Reserve Bank of India. On the day of the incident, he had gone to his office as usual, but at about 1-45 p.m.. he sought leave trom his superior for going to Regional Transport Office for obtaining form for his driving licence. against the recess time which he was permitted to do. After completing his work at the Regional Transport Office, he went to his home which is located just opposite the Regional Transport Office. He opened the front door of his Hat with the help of the key to the latch and entered the house. To his shock and surprise, he found his wife-Laxmiben lying dead in a puddle of blood. He, therefore, immediately rushed to the Sabarmati Police Station and informed the police about the same. The police recorded this information, registered the offence and started investigation. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency found that there was evidence to connect accused No. 2-Vikram Khimji and his brother, accused No. 1- Madhavji Khimji with the offence in the nature of circumstantial evidence. The police, therefore, filed a charge-sheet against the two of them charging that they had entered into a conspiracy to commit murder of Laxmiben and accused No. I with the help of two other unidentified persons committed the murder of Laxmiben. The case was, ultimately, committed to the Court of Sessions and Additional City Sessions Judge. Ahmedabad proceeded with the trial against the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and expressed their desire to face the trial.

(2.) After recording the evidence and considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, by his judgment and order dated 2 2/02/1991, acquitted both the accused persons for the offences with which they were charged. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the State has preferred" this acquittal appeal against original accused Nos. I and 2. who are present respondents No. 1 and 2 herein.

(3.) Mr. A. J. Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken us through the evidence adduced by the prosecution. He submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence wherein the near and dear ones of the deceased have conspired to do away a helpless lady and have successfully done so. He subwitted that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in evaluating the evidence. The evidence of Vijay has not been properly evaluated. If that was done. there was sufficient evidence at least to show that deceased was last seen in company of accused No. I a few minutes before the incident occurred. Accused No. 1 was accompanied by two unidentified persons. The learned trial Judge ought to have considered the evidence of Vijay along with the evidence of Dahyabhai. PW 5 - father of the deceased. If these two pieces of evidence were taken together, the doubt regarding identity of accused No. 1 which was tried to be raised by the defence and accepted by the trial Court could have been removed. Mr. Desai further submitted that this is a case of a series of coincidents which normally cannot be expected to occurwithout there being a planning. Accused No. 2 in a casual manner leaves his office by procuring leave for going to Regional Transport Office, whereafter he does not return to office and. in fact, goes to his residence. Mr. Desai submitted that presence of accused No. I is seen by witness-Ajay at the place of incident few minutes before the incident is noticed and it is only these two persons who have some motive for murdering the deceased. Mr. Desai has drawn our attention to a letter, admittedly. written by accused No. ?. to his father-in-law, i.e.. father of deceased-Laxmiben. which indicates that the relations between accused No. 2 and the deceased were not normal. Of course, that letter indicates that accused No. 2 was too tired of Laxmiben and,he had threatened Dahyabhai of committing suicide. Mr. Desai urged that this frustration coupled with desire to live may have persuaded accused No. 2 to change his stand from committing suicide to committing murder and this aspect is overlooked by the learned trial Judge. Mr. Desai urged that a helpless lady is done to death in a safe place called her home in broad day light. If the post-mortem notes are seen. she has been caused a series of injuries and is, ultimately, brutally done to death with the help of an electric 'wire. Her earlobe.s were cut-off and therefore, the accused persons, who have been successfully connected with the offence by the prosecution, ought to have been convicted by the learned trial Judge. Mr. Desai. therefore, urged that the appeal may be allowed setting aside the order of acquittal and the accused persons-respondents may be convicted for the offence with which they are charged.