(1.) THIS Appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, on 22nd of August, 2000, in Sessions Case No. 174 of 1999, whereby the present appellant being accused of the said Session Case came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and to pay fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of 10 days.
(2.) AS per the prosecution case, the accused Kanubhai was harbouring a suspicion that deceased Amrutbhai Somabhai Parmar had illicit relationship with Manujlaben, wife of his elder brother Dineshbhai revabhai Makwana. The incident occurred on 28th of March, 1999 at village Punasan, Taluka and District Mehsana. According to prosecution case, deceased Amrutbhai and his brother had agricultural lands in the sim of village Punasana and at the time of the incident, Bhartiben Trivedi, married sister of deceased was at Punasana. On the day of the incident, bhartiben, sister of the deceased and Menaben Somabhai, mother of the deceased along with Amrutbhai had been to their agricultural land for reaping crops and while they were taking crops, Amrutbhai started to go for natural call in nearby narrow lane. After some time, Bhartiben and menaben both heard shouts of Amrutbhai and, therefore, they went towards the narrow lane where Amrutbhai had gone for natural call. When both of them i. e Menaben and Bhartiben reached near that lane, they found that the accused and deceased both were grappling with each other and accused inflicted a stab wound by knife on the chest of the deceased. Deceased Amrutbhai had fallen down on the ground and the accused Kanubhai along with the knife ran away from the spot. It is the prosecution case that accused was doing some labour work and was going to some factory on cycle along with tiffin. While running away from the spot, accused left his cycle and tiffin box at the spot. In the meantime, one Khodabhai Chaudhary came at the scene of offence and he was sent to convey about the incident to complainant Natvarbhai somabhai, brother of the deceased. Complainant Natvarbhai Somabhai went to the scene of offence and deceased was shifted to Civil Hospital at Mehsana and on examination, it was found that Amrutbhai had died. Natvarbhai lodged complaint in this regard before PW-13 Naranbhai gangaram Patel and crime was registered against the accused. Investigation was carried out by PW-13 Naranbhai Gangaram Patel, police Inspector, Mehsana Taluka Police Station. In pursuance of which a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate and ultimately under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, case was committed to the Court of Sessions at mehsana and was made over to the Trial Court. The charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the indian Penal Code, vide Exhibit-1, on 13th of December, 1999, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and, hence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and produced on record voluminous documentary evidence. Further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the criminal Procedure Code was recorded by the Trial Court bringing all the incriminating evidence against the accused and the case of the accused was that he did not know anything about the incident and while he was going to Shobhasan Ronak Ceramic factory for work, he found that, at the scene of offence, some 10 to 15 persons were gathered, who alleged the accused that the accused had murdered the deceased and, therefore, he ran away from the spot. The arguments were heard in detail by the learned Trial Judge and after hearing both the sides, the learned Trial judge came to the above conclusion and, hence, this Appeal against the conviction and sentence by the accused.
(3.) PROSECUTION examined as many as 13 witnesses and produced on record voluminous documentary evidence. PW-1 Natvarbhai Somabhai Patel, examined at Exhibit-9, is the complainant, who was called at the scene of offence and he filed the complaint which on record at Exhibit-10. PW-2 Dr. Bhagwandas Dahyalal Modi, examined at Exhibit 11, examined the accused on 29. 3. 1999 at Civil Hospital, Mehsana and according to this witness, the accused had incise wound at right hand una 2 cms x 0. 5 cm deep with clotted blood and infection. Above injury was caused by sharp cutting instrument and healing period was within 7 to 8 (eight)days if no complication occur. According to this witness, in history, the accused stated that he was injured by a knife. PW-3 Dr. Gangaram sukhramsnehi conducted the postmortem on the dead body on 28th of march, 1999 and according to him the deceased had following injuries. stab wound elliptical in shape. Vertical 3x1 cm size in third left inter coastal space. 3 cms above the left nipple lower end of wound is pointed and upper is round. Blood comes from wound. Wound edges retracted. According to this Doctor, cause of death was due to shock and intra thoracic massive haemorrhage. The injury was ante-mortem and there were corresponding internal injuries as well. Postmortem Note is on record at Exhibit-15. PW-3 Bhartiben Pravinbhai, examined at exhibit-17 and PW-5 Menaben Somabhai, examined at Exhibit-18, both are the eye witnesses, who noticed that accused and deceased where grappling with each other and accused inflicted a knife blow upon the deceased. PW-G Chaudhari Khodabhai Lavjibhai, examined at Exhibit-9, is the person who was sent to call Natvarbhai Somabhai at the scene of offence. PW-7 Gandabhai Keshabhai Raval, examined at Exhibit-20, is the person, who reached at the scene of offence after the incident of hearing the shouts from PW-4 and PW-5. PW-8 Manaji Talaji Thakore, examined at Exhibit-22, is the panch of scene of offence panchnama and according to this witness complainant had shown the scene of offence. Panchnama is placed at Exhibit-23. PW-9 Kubergiri Kangiri Goswami, examined at Exhibit-24, is also a panch witness of discovery panchnama by which the accused discovered a knife. The panchnama is placed at exhibit-25. PW- 10 Lavjibhai Laljibhai Chaudhari, examined at Exhibit-26 is second panch of panchnama at Exhibit-25 for discovery of knife from the accused. PW-11 Naranbhai Balabhai Parihar, examined at exhibit 27, conducted inquest of the deceased and at that time this witness was Assistant Police Sub-Inspector in Mehsana Taluka Police station. Inquest panchnama is placed at Exhibit-26. PW-12 Rajkumar govindbhai Trivedi, examined at Exhibit 31, was the then serving as circle Inspector in the Revenue Department of Mehsana District and he was called for preparing a map of the scene of offence. Accordingly, he prepared a map on 7. 12. 2000 which is placed at Exhibit-13. PW-13 naranbhai Gangaram Patel, examined at Exhibit-34 was serving as Police inspector in Mehsana Taluka Police Station. He recorded the complaint of complainant at hospital and investigated the offence and filed charge sheet. This is all is the evidence of the prosecution.