GHELABHAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Lalita Kantilal Parmar met with homicidal death in the evening of April 1, 1980 after being taken in an injured condition to the Breach Candy Hospital. The dead body of Lalita was subjected to post-mortem examination by Dr. Prabhakar Katke (P.W. 9) whose post-mortem notes are at Exhibit 18, while the case papers which were produced by Dr. Neminath Patil (P.W. 8) are at Exhibit 16. They clearly go to show that Lalita was assaulted by means of a sharp-edged weapon like knife. She was rushed in an injured condition by Homi Sethna (P.W. 2) first to the Parsi General Hospital and thereafter to the Breach Candy Hospital where she succumbed.

(2.) The present appellant-accused is father-in-law of the deceased Lalita. The prosecution alleges that he had a motive against the deceased Lalita, for he suspected some illicit relations she had developed with Govind Patel (P.W. 6). It is further suggested by the prosecution that while the deceased Lalita and her husband Kantibhai (P.W. 7) were residing in Garage No. 4 in Stable Building, on the day of the incident at about 3 p.m., the accused who was working as a domestic servant with Homi Sethna came to the garage and thereafter went back to the flat of Homi Sethna and again came back to the garage and assaulted Lalita by means of the knife traced as article 4. The direct incident of assault is not eye-witnessed by anyone, but the circumstances closely following the assault are narrated by the witnesses, being the employer, Homi Sethna (P.W. 2), with whom the accused was serving as a domestic servant, and neighbouring inhabitants Dajuba Jadeja (P.W. 3), Dropadi Waghmare (P.W. 4), Magan Rathod (P.W. 5) and William Crasto (P.W. 15). The testimony of the son of the present appellant-accused, Kantibhai Parmar (P.W. 7), as well as the testimony of Govind Patel (P.W. 6) are tendered so as to show that the deceased Lalita could not have possibly any illicit relations with Govind Patel (P.W. 6), as were suspected by the accused.

(3.) Initially, in the trial Court, the defence of the accused was one of denial. After he was examined under S. 313, Cr. P.C. 1973 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, he filed a written statement praying that that written statement be treated as part of his say under S. 313, Cr. P.C. That statement is itself Exhibit 52. Practically the circumstantial chain of events disclosed by the prosecution evidence is not disputed in that statement. Apart from that, the accused has added in this statement that when he returned back again from the flat of Homi Sethna (P.W. 2), there was an altercation between him and the deceased Lalita during the course of which he questioned her whether her boy-friend had only the right to visit her and whether she was expecting him. Upon this, the deceased Lalita said that if the accused can see he may do so or put chilly powder in his eyes. According to the accused that triggered a brain storm and he did not know what happened thereafter. He further stated that he saw a knife lying on the wooden shelf. He was unable to say whether it was Sethna's knife or somebody else's. He further stated that he saw visions of the deceased Lalita in intimacy with Govind Patel and his grandchildren looking in a horrified manner. He experienced buzzing in his ears and his brain was in whirl and then came the mental blackout. He had no intention to hurt or kill Lalita or even the slightest idea that such thing would happen. He still does not believe that it is he who killed the deceased Lalita. On the other hand, he stated that he loved his son, his grandchildren and the deceased Lalita until she started misbehaving. According to him, he is full of remorse and he expressed all agony, remorse and sense of frustration and throws himself at the feet of the Court. The written statement so filed appears to have been taken on record, and as we have indicated it is at Exhibit 52. That shows that excepting the part as to what happened inside the garage when the accused returned second time from the flat of Homi Sethna (P.W. 2), the entire chain of events spoken to by the witnesses is categorically accepted. The statement, thus, appears to be a statement made to unburden one's mind freely and voluntarily before the Court and could be treated so. Undoubtedly, such a statement has to be taken as a whole and not in piecemeal.