Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 542 (GUJ)

Dhanjibhai M. Rathva v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2004-08-18

J.M.PANCHAL, J.R.VORA

body2004
JUDGMENT J.M. Vohra, J. (Oral) This Appeal is preferred under the provisions of Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment and order delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda, Camp at Chhotaudepur, on 21st of August, 1996, in Sessions Case No.10/1996, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellant has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Section 323, 504 and 114 of the IPC. In the said Session Case No.10 of 1996 along with the appellant, two other accused - Ashokbhai Dhanjibhai Rathva and Narottambhai Dhanjibhai Rathva who are sons of the appellant were also tried for the charges under Section 302, 323, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, but the learned Trial Judge has acquitted accused Ashokbhai and Narottambhai of the charges levelled against them as aforesaid vide judgment and order under challenge in this Appeal. The acquittal of the appellant for the above said charges and the acquittal of the other two accused, as aforesaid, is not the subject matter of challenge by the State Government in any acquittal appeal. 2. The prosecution story discloses that the incident in question occurred on 14.6.1995 at about 11.30 to 12.00 a.m. at village Khandia-amadar. Deceased in the incident was Jayantibhai Malkhabhai, brother of the present appellant. On the day of the incident, deceased went to the house of the appellant to inquire whether appellant desired to give land for cultivation. Residence of the deceased and the residence of the appellant are situated nearby and at the distance of about 300 feet. The cause of dispute appears to be the agricultural land and though more land had fallen in the share of the appellant, while deceased went to the residence of appellant for the above purpose, the appellant aimed and darted arrow towards deceased, which struck to the deceased in between chest and abdomen of his body. PW-3 Shantaben Jayantibhai, widow of the deceased as well as PW-4 Sumitraben Jayantibhai, daughter of the deceased witnessed the incident. As per the prosecution story, appellant shot an arrow from a near distance of about 8 to 10 feet. PW-3 Shantaben Jayantibhai, widow of the deceased as well as PW-4 Sumitraben Jayantibhai, daughter of the deceased witnessed the incident. As per the prosecution story, appellant shot an arrow from a near distance of about 8 to 10 feet. Though PW-3 Shantaben attempted to intervene but the acquitted accused pushed her away and gave a blow of iron rod on the back of PW-3 Shantaben. On receiving injuries, the deceased died on the spot. Appellant tried to extract arrow from the wound caused in the body of the deceased, but front sharpened part of the arrow remained in the body while back portion was extracted by appellant from the wound. PW-3 Shantaben thereafter went to Pavijetpur Police Station and reached there at about 2.15 p.m. where Jivabhai Hirabhai Parmar, Police Sub-Inspector of Pavijetpur Police Station recorded complaint of PW-3 Shantaben as narrated by her. After registering the offence, Jivabhai Hirabhai Parmar started investigation and reached at the scene of offence. He drew panchnama of scene of offence and held inquest on dead body of the deceased. On the next day, appellant and acquitted accused presented themselves before him and produced bow, back portion of arrow, etc. The dead body was sent to Primary Health Centre at Pavijetpur for postmortem. Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and forwarded recovered muddamal to Forensic Science Laboratory. PW-3 Shantaben with police yadi was sent to hospital for treatment. Investigating Officer Jivabhai filed charge sheet in the court of learned J.M.F.C. at Chhotaudepur, and since the charges levelled against the appellant and acquitted accused were required to be tried exclusively by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Baroda, where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 10 of 1996. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda, Camp at Chottaudepur, framed charge against the appellants and acquitted accused vide Exh.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and other acquitted accused pleaded not guilty to the above said charges. Prosecution thereafter examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case as under : PW-1 Dr. Ranjitbhai Shantilal Choudhari is examined at Exh.10, to whom PW-3 Shantaben was sent by police with a yadi for the treatment, PW-2 Dr. Bharatkumar Harsadray Pandya, examined at Exh. The appellant and other acquitted accused pleaded not guilty to the above said charges. Prosecution thereafter examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case as under : PW-1 Dr. Ranjitbhai Shantilal Choudhari is examined at Exh.10, to whom PW-3 Shantaben was sent by police with a yadi for the treatment, PW-2 Dr. Bharatkumar Harsadray Pandya, examined at Exh. 12, who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased on the same day at about 4.30 p.m.; PW-3 Shantaben Jayantibhai, widow of the deceased, is examined at Exh.15 as an eye witness; PW-4 Sumitraben Jayantibhai, daughter of the deceased, is examined at Exh.16 as an eye witness; PW-5 Arjunbhai Tetabhai, son-in-law of the deceased, is examined at Exh. 17 as an eye witness; PW-6 Chhatrasinh Kesurbhai, examined at Exh. 18 also an eye witness; PW-7 Kuchiyabhai Shankerbhai, examined at Exh.19 as an eye witness; PW-8 Amrabhai Jamabhai, examined at Exh. 20 being panch of inquest panchnama as well as panchnama of scene of offence; PW-9 Iqbalhussain Abhibhbhai Malek, examined at Exh. 23 as panch of arrest panchnama of the appellant and acquitted accused and panchnama of recovery of muddamal; PW-10 Maheshbhai Manubhai Tadvi, examined at Exh. 25, being second panch of arrest panchnama of the appellant and acquitted accused; PW-11 Jivabhai Hirabhai Parmar, examined at Exh. 31, who being Police Sub-Inspector of Pavijetpur Police Station, recorded the complaint of PW-3 Shantaben and investigated the crime. 4. In addition to the above oral evidence, prosecution also tendered documentary evidence in the form of postmortem note of the deceased at Exh. 14; inquest panchnama at Exh. 21; scene of offence panchnama at Exh.22, arrest panchnama of the accused and recovery panchnama of muddamal at Exh. 24; recovery of clothes of deceased panchnama at Exh. 26, complaint at Exh.32, map of scene of offence, opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory at Exh. 28. 5. After recording of the evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge explained all the circumstances to the appellant appearing against him, according to the provisions of Section 313 of the Criminal procedure Code and asked his explanation. The appellant took the defence of total denial and on a question from the court that whether appellant desired to explain anything further, the appellant only stated that a false complaint was filed against him. 6. The appellant took the defence of total denial and on a question from the court that whether appellant desired to explain anything further, the appellant only stated that a false complaint was filed against him. 6. After hearing learned counsels for the prosecution as well as defence, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the death of deceased Jayantibhai was culpable homicide and present appellant darted an arrow on 14.6.1995 at about 11.30 to 12.00 a.m. which struck the deceased in between chest and abdomen causing his death. The learned Judge also came to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove its case against acquitted accused and ultimately having relied upon eye witnesses, learned Trial Judge found present appellant guilty for causing death of deceased Jayantibhai as punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. Before evaluating the evidence on record, with reference to the contentions of the counsels and the findings of the learned Trial Court, it is necessary to mention the evidence tendered by the prosecution in this case. 7. Prosecution examined as many as five eye witnesses in this case. Out of which PW-6 Chhatrasinh Kesurbhai, Exh.19 and PW-5 Arjunbhai Tetabhai, Exh. 17 did not support the prosecution case while other three eye witnesses - PW-3 Shantaben Exh.15, PW-4 Sumitraben Exh.16 and PW-7 Kuchiyabhai Shankerbhai, Exh.19, fully supported the prosecution case. 8. First of all, the evidence of Medical Experts i.e. PW-1 Dr. Ranjit Shantilal Choudhary and PW-2 Dr. Bharatkumar Harsadray Pandya is required to be narrated hereunder. Dr. Ranjitbhai Shantilal Choudhary, PW-1 Exh. 10 stated that on 19th of June, 1995 he was serving as a Medical Officer at Pavijetpur Hospital and at about 9.40 a.m. Shantaben Jayantibhai Rathva was forwarded to him with a police yadi for the treatment of injury she received, but on examination, he did not find any injury nor patient Shantaben offered a history of the injury. He did not therefore issue any certificate. The evidence of this witness is not relevant for the purpose of this Appeal. PW-2 Dr. Bharatkumar Harsadroy Pandya, Exh. 12, stated that he received dead body of Jayantibhai Malkabhai on 14th of June, 1995, accompanied by Police Constable Thakorebhai Ramabhai, and he started autopsy at 4.30 p.m. and completed at 6.30 p.m. He found following three external injuries on the dead body. PW-2 Dr. Bharatkumar Harsadroy Pandya, Exh. 12, stated that he received dead body of Jayantibhai Malkabhai on 14th of June, 1995, accompanied by Police Constable Thakorebhai Ramabhai, and he started autopsy at 4.30 p.m. and completed at 6.30 p.m. He found following three external injuries on the dead body. (i) Contusion on the left upper half of the chest on 5th rib - transverse haematoma size 12 x 1 cm. (ii) CLW on the base of the nose on left side, bone deep, longitudinal 1.5 cms. (iii) Penetrating wound, just latizon with sternum, near sternostal junction of right 11th rib. On further examination, he found internal injuries and noticed that there was a fracture on 11th rib on right side anterior side near sternostal junction due to arrow whereby right pleura was punctured and Right lung punctured and partially collapsed and was haemorrhagic by arrow injury. He stated that, according to him, cause of death was due to haemorrhage and injury to vital organs like lungs by it's penetration. He produced postmortem notes at Exh.14. He stated that all the injuries were antemortem and injury No.3 out of external injuries, as stated above, was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. According to him the injury was possible by sharp weapon like arrow. He also stated that he found the sharpened front part of arrow in injury No.3 in the body of deceased which he extracted during autopsy. On confronting him with muddamal article No.3 arrow, the witness stated that muddamal article No.3 was the same front part of arrow which he extracted from the dead body. In his cross-examination, he admitted that in the postmortem note he did not mention that he extracted part of arrow from the dead body during autopsy. He was asked about the distance from which the arrow might have been shot, and he replied that, it depends upon the force by which the arrow is shot. He admitted that he did not mention the depth of the injury in postmortem notes. He admitted that external injuries No.1 and 2 were the injuries caused by some other weapon than the arrow. He denied that the life of the deceased could have been saved, had the deceased received due treatment. He admitted that he did not mention the depth of the injury in postmortem notes. He admitted that external injuries No.1 and 2 were the injuries caused by some other weapon than the arrow. He denied that the life of the deceased could have been saved, had the deceased received due treatment. He further stated in cross-examination that in liver he found semi undigested food and, therefore, the deceased might have taken food within two and half to three hours immediately preceding the death. 9. The evidence of this witness leaves no room for the doubt that death of the deceased was culpable homicide, and that was direct result of the injury by an arrow shot which had hit on the vital part of the body of the deceased, though there is no dispute about the fact that the prosecution proved that the death of the deceased was culpable homicide and that the deceased had received antemortem injuries through weapon like arrow. 10. Evidence of PW-3 Shantaben Jayantibhai was recorded at Exh.15. Her deposition reveals following facts: The incident took place before six months. At that time, her deceased husband, her daughter and son-in-law, resided together. The name of her daughter was Sumitra and name of her son-in-law was Arjanbhai. On the day of the incident, her deceased husband had gone to the house of appellant to inquire about whether appellant wanted to give agricultural land to anybody for cultivation. The house of appellant as well as of the deceased were situated at the distance of about 300 feet. According to her, when her deceased husband asked appellant No.1 as aforesaid, immediately appellant No. 1 shot arrow towards her husband and other acquitted accused inflicted blows by iron rod. She stated that appellant was elder brother of her husband and acquitted accused were his sons. She was near the scene of offence when incident took place. Her husband had fallen down in the court yard of the house of the appellant below one mango tree. The arrow was struck in between chest and abdomen on the body of her husband. Her husband died on the spot. She stated that the incident took place for the land dispute. Her husband had given two acres more land to the appellant, and even then, appellant murdered her husband. The arrow was struck in between chest and abdomen on the body of her husband. Her husband died on the spot. She stated that the incident took place for the land dispute. Her husband had given two acres more land to the appellant, and even then, appellant murdered her husband. She stated that she had been to Pavijetpur Police Station where she gave complaint and subscribed her thumb impression. The complaint was read over to her and she confirmed that the said complaint was recorded as narrated by her. She identified the accused. In her cross-examination, she stated that the said arrow had broken from its latter part and the back portion i.e. of wooden part was lying at the scene of offence. She stated that she was illiterate. In cross examination, she was asked about the direction of the doors of the houses of deceased and appellant. She stated that door of her house was abutting towards northern direction. Her house was situated in her field, and after the field, in the southern direction, house of appellant was situated in his field. She stated that on the day of incident, her husband had not taken his mid day meal. She denied that while deceased went to the appellant, she stayed in her house and did not come out. She denied that on the day of incident, there was quarrel amongst her husband and her son-in-law. She denied that her deceased husband was drunkard. In a direct question, she stated that the appellant shot arrow at a distance of 8 to 10 feet. She stated that she tried to rescue her husband but Ashok Dhanji inflicted dang (iron rod) blows on her and, therefore, she steered herself at some distance from the scene of offence. She denied that thereafter when she returned, she found that her husband was lying dead in the court yard of the accused. She stated that this incident lasted for about five minutes. She stated that after half an hour, she went for filing complaint along with her son-in-law. She admitted that she could not read clock and say the exact time, but she could say the time through passing day and movement of the sun. She stated that this incident lasted for about five minutes. She stated that after half an hour, she went for filing complaint along with her son-in-law. She admitted that she could not read clock and say the exact time, but she could say the time through passing day and movement of the sun. According to her at about 5.00 p.m., her complaint was recorded and PSI came to her village and at the time of incident, her deceased husband had put on black pant but nothing on the upper part of the body. She denied that she did not witness the incident. 11. Evidence of PW-4 Sumitraben Jayantibhai reveals as under: She is daughter of the deceased. On the day of incident, she was at her parental home. She, her husband, her two brothers, her parents resided together in the said house. At about 11 in the morning, her father went to the appellant for asking about the agricultural land. At that time, appellant shot an arrow, which struck in between chest and abdomen on the body of her father. Ashok (acquitted accused) gave blow by dang to her father. Narrottam (acquitted accused) caught hold of her father. Her father had fallen down below one mango tree in the court yard of the appellant. She stated that appellant happened to be his uncle while acquitted accused were sons of appellant. She stated that she witnessed the incident at a distance of 5 to 7 feet. In her cross-examination, she denied that police inquired about the incident from her. She denied that police recorded her statement. She denied that in her police statement she stated that her father had been to appellant for asking about agricultural land. She denied that she prevented her father from going to the house of the appellant. She heard commotion near the house of the appellant, therefore, all of them went there. She stated that when they reached there, incident started. She and her husband attempted to intervene and rescue her father, but appellant and other accused ran after them. They thereafter stood at some distance, near a well, at about 20 feet from where her father was lying. She also denied that on the day of incident, there was serious quarrel between her husband and her father. She and her husband attempted to intervene and rescue her father, but appellant and other accused ran after them. They thereafter stood at some distance, near a well, at about 20 feet from where her father was lying. She also denied that on the day of incident, there was serious quarrel between her husband and her father. She denied that her father had beaten her husband and therefore her husband had run away from the house. She stated that quarrel with the appellant and other accused, at the time of incident, was about the agricultural land, and her father was saying to the appellant that either appellant should cultivate the land or give the same to others for cultivation. At that time, bow and arrow which were lying near the doors of the house of the appellant were picked up by the appellant and he immediately shot the arrow towards her father. The back portion of the arrow was extracted by the appellant from the wound caused to her father. The incident occurred at 11.00 a.m. She stated that her clothes were blood stained and appellant had pelted arrow from the distance of 2 feet. The police reached at the scene of offence at about 12'O clock in the morning. She denied that she did not witness the incident or the incident which she narrated had never taken place. She admitted that the agricultural land was partitioned amongst her father and her uncle. She denied that her father was heavy drinker and was in habit of picking up quarrels with everybody. She denied that her father had enmity with other persons also. She denied that murder of her father was committed in darkness and nobody had witnessed the said incident. 12. In sequence, the other important witness is PW-7 Kachiabhai Shankerbhai Rathva, examined at Exh. 19. He stated that the accused appellant and acquitted accused were known to him and deceased Jayantibhai happened to be brother of the appellant. The incident took place about before one year. He was doing masonry work in the house of Sarpanch Chamrabhai Rathva. He heard noise and saw that appellant pelted an arrow towards the deceased which struck on his body in between chest and abdomen. Thereafter, he went to his house. He witnessed the incident at the distance of about 300 feet. He pleaded his ignorance about the cause of dispute. He heard noise and saw that appellant pelted an arrow towards the deceased which struck on his body in between chest and abdomen. Thereafter, he went to his house. He witnessed the incident at the distance of about 300 feet. He pleaded his ignorance about the cause of dispute. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was doing masonry work on the western wall of the house of Chamrabhai. The said house was situated in the field of Chamrabhai. In the northern side of the field, the house of Chamrabhai was situated. He admitted that at the end of the field of Chamrabhai which consists of about 26 gunthas, on southern direction, field and house of appellant were situated. He also admitted that the door of the house of Chamrabhai opened on southern direction. He emphatically denied that it was impossible for him to witness towards back side of the house of the appellant from where he was doing masonry work. He stated that he started his work at 9.00 a.m. The incident took place at about 11.30 a.m. He stated that he wears wrist watch. Police recorded his statement at about 2.00 pm. on the very day. Deceased was standing below a mango tree and appellant was near door of his house when he shot arrow towards the deceased. He denied that the said incident had not occurred. He denied that at the instance of the police, he stated that he witnessed the incident. He denied that he stated false facts in his deposition. 13. The prosecution examined PW-5 Arjunbhai Tetabhai at Exh. 17 and PW-6 Chhatrasinh Kesurbhai at Exh. 18 as eye witnesses, but none of them supported the prosecution case. PW-5 Arjunbhai Tetabhai, Exh. 17 is son-in-law of the deceased while PW-6 Chhatrasinh Kesurbhai at Exh. 18, was resident of the village, in which the incident took place. Both of them were declared hostile and were confronted with their police statements by learned APP. 14. Prosecution also examined PW-8 Chamrabhai Jamabhai at Exh. 20 being panch of inquest panchnama at Exh. 21 and panchnama of scene of offence at Exh.22. He supported both panchnamas. The panchnamas were read over to him and he stated that both panchnamas were drawn in his presence. He stated that police obtained bloodstained earth as well as sample earth from the scene of offence. 20 being panch of inquest panchnama at Exh. 21 and panchnama of scene of offence at Exh.22. He supported both panchnamas. The panchnamas were read over to him and he stated that both panchnamas were drawn in his presence. He stated that police obtained bloodstained earth as well as sample earth from the scene of offence. He also stated that dead body of the deceased was shown to him and he noticed a wound caused by an arrow on the body of the deceased Jayantibhai which was located in between chest and abdomen. 15. PW-9 Iqbalhussain Abhibhbhai examined at Exh. 23 and PW-10 Maheshbhai Manubhai Tadvi examined at Exh. 25, are the panchas of panchnama at Exh. 24, which establishes that the appellant and acquitted accused presented themselves before the Police and also presented weapons. The Police seized weapons as well as clothes put on by the accused through the said panchnama. However, none of them i.e. PW-9 or PW-10 supported the above said panchnama at Exh.24 and they were declared hostile and confronted with the contents of panchnama by learned APP. 16. PW-11 Jivabhai Hirabhai Parmar is examined at Exh. 31 by prosecution being Investigating Officer and Police Sub-Inspector of Pavijetpur Police Station, who recorded the complaint of Shantaben. He stated that at about 14.15 hours, Shantaben came to her and narrated her complaint which came to be recorded and in pursuance of that complaint, offence was registered in Pavijetpur Police Station. He took over the investigation and visited the scene of offence, drew inquest panchnama, panchnama of scene of offence and forwarded dead body to the hospital for postmortem. He obtained bloodstained and sample earth from the scene of offence. On the second day of the incident, appellant as well as acquitted accused presented themselves before him and also produced the back portion of arrow and they were arrested. The cloth of appellant i.e. dhoti which he had put on was blood stained and was also seized by a panchnama. He stated that muddamal including the clothes of the deceased were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. He recorded the statements of the witness and filed charge sheet. In his cross-examination, contradictions from the evidence of Shantaben and Sumitraben were asked by the defence to prove the same. He stated that muddamal including the clothes of the deceased were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. He recorded the statements of the witness and filed charge sheet. In his cross-examination, contradictions from the evidence of Shantaben and Sumitraben were asked by the defence to prove the same. He denied that he recorded the statement of witness Kuchiyabhai Shankarbai according to his wish and not as narrated by the said witness. He denied to have drawn panchnama not as per the say of the panchas. He denied that appellant as well as acquitted accused did not present any muddamal before him. He denied that the appellant and acquitted accused had not committed any crime but only on suspicion they were chargesheeted. 17. This is all the evidence produced by the prosecution. 18. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that main eye witnesses i.e. wife and daughter of the deceased, both are highly interested witnesses because they are related to the deceased and their testimony cannot be relied upon. Learned Counsel argued that son-in-law of the deceased Arjunbhai as well as one other independent witness PW-6 Chhatrasinh Kesurbhai did not support the prosecution case and therefore a doubt is created in the story narrated by interested witnesses. It was contended that the evidence of Shantaben as well as Sumitraben is in contradiction to each other and also in contradiction with their police statements and such contradictions are proved. It was contended that panchas of panchnama at Exh. 24 by which muddamal weapon and clothes of appellant are alleged to have been recovered by the police did not support the panchnama. The case of prosecution thus becomes weak and doubtful. Learned counsel also contended that as per evidence, before the incident, there was quarrel and exchange of words between the deceased and appellant, and if the court comes to the conclusion that the incident did occur, then having regard to above circumstances, this is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of the Penal Code. It was urged that appeal be allowed accordingly. 19. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Sudhansu S. Patel contended that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by direct evidence. The reasons advanced on behalf of the appellant are not sound to doubt the evidence of the eye witnesses Shantaben, Sumitraben and Kuchiyabhai Shankarbhai. It was urged that appeal be allowed accordingly. 19. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Sudhansu S. Patel contended that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by direct evidence. The reasons advanced on behalf of the appellant are not sound to doubt the evidence of the eye witnesses Shantaben, Sumitraben and Kuchiyabhai Shankarbhai. According to him only because Shantaben happens to be wife of the deceased and Sumitraben, daughter of the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown overboard. It was pleaded that on scrutiny, the evidence of these three witnesses inspires confidence and nothing could be brought about by defence in cross-examination to disbelieve any of these three core witnesses. It was contended that their evidence is further supported by the evidence of the medical expert Dr. Bharatkumar Harsadroy Pandya, who performed autopsy and report of Forensic Science Laboratory and report of Serological Department. Though two eye witnesses out of three, who have supported the prosecution version, are related to the deceased, on scrutiny, their presence at the scene of offence appears natural. Learned Counsel for the State further stated that no interference is required by this Court in the judgment impugned in this Appeal and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 20. Having heard learned Counsel of both the sides, having gone through the record of the case entirely including the judgment impugned, it clearly transpires that the prosecution proposed to prove the charge against the appellant by direct evidence through eye witnesses as well as other corroborative and supporting evidence. We have undertaken thorough scrutiny of the evidence with reference to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant in this Appeal. We have appreciated and scanned the evidence on record afresh. 21. True it is that, out of five eye witnesses, PW-5 Arjunbhai Tetabhai, son-in-law of the deceased and PW-6 Chhatrasinh Kesurbhai, Exh. 18, have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. That brings this court to appreciate the evidence of remaining three eye witnesses. Appreciating the evidence of PW-3 Shantaben, PW-4 Sumitraben and PW-7 Kuchiyabhai Shankerbhai, it clearly transpires that the evidence of all these three eye witnesses cannot be brushed aside only because out of three witnesses, two are related to the deceased. The law, in this respect cautions the courts to scrutinise the evidence of interested witnesses carefully and if found trustworthy, the same can be relied upon if inspires confidence. The law, in this respect cautions the courts to scrutinise the evidence of interested witnesses carefully and if found trustworthy, the same can be relied upon if inspires confidence. When we visualise occurrence of the incident, while appreciating the evidence of these three eye witnesses, it becomes clear that the presence of these three eye witnesses at the scene of offence becomes natural. It is established beyond doubt that PW-4 Sumitraben though married daughter of the deceased, had come to the parental home along with her husband. It is established beyond reasonable doubt that there was a dispute about land between the appellant and deceased who happened to be real brothers. It is also established that the houses of the deceased and appellant were situated at a distance of about 300 feet. The time of incident is about 11.00 a.m. in the morning. Undoubtedly, at that time, when incident occurred, wife of the deceased and daughter of the deceased were in the house when they heard some commotion. They immediately came out of the house as they had knowledge that the accused was going to the house of the appellant and witnessed that appellant darted an arrow towards the deceased from a very short distance. Witness Shantaben and Sumitraben both have withstood the cross-examination of the defence. Though being rustic and illiterate village ladies, nothing could be elicited from any of them through cross-examination as to create any doubt as to the evidence of the said witnesses being truthful. Though certain contradictions were asked and proved but the contradictions are minor and as to what was dispute about the land and not affecting the core of prosecution case and the core of the prosecution case is appellant darted an arrow which struck on the body of the deceased in between chest and abdomen of the deceased. PW-3 Shantaben being wife of the deceased and PW-4 Sumitraben being daughter of the deceased and since the incident occurred near their house, their presence at the scene of offence being natural, there cannot be any doubt that they must have witnessed the incident. Simplicity and the manner in which PW-3 Shantaben and PW-4 Sumitraben have deposed before the Court is the guarantee of their truthfulness. They had ample opportunity to witness and observe the incident. Simplicity and the manner in which PW-3 Shantaben and PW-4 Sumitraben have deposed before the Court is the guarantee of their truthfulness. They had ample opportunity to witness and observe the incident. Without any exaggeration or embellishment in the deposition before the court, they have narrated the incident as it had occurred and could not be shaken by the defence in cross-examination. There is no rhyme or reason for a wife or a daughter of the deceased to involve the appellant in the murder of the deceased falsely and to allow the real culprit to go scot-free. Like wise, there are no reasons at all to doubt their testimony. The evidence therefore of PW-3 Shantaben and PW-4 Sumitraben accordingly inspire confidence and is worthy of acceptance. 22. PW-3 Shantaben lodged complaint before PW-11 Jivabhai Hirabhai, then PSI of Pavijetpur Police Station. When in this respect, evidence of PW-11 Jivabhai Hirabhai is appreciated, it leads us to conclusion that, PW-3 Shantaben lodged FIR immediately at 14.15 hours on that day. In the said FIR she gave all details of the occurrence including name of eye witness PW-4 Sumitraben, her daughter. Defence could not dislodge the proved fact that FIR was given by PW-3 Shantaben as above said. The evidence of PW-3 Shantaben and PW-4 Sumitraben is fitting naturally to the circumstances of the prosecution story as disclosed in FIR at the earliest point of time. Learned Trial Judge rightly relied upon this evidence. We do not find any substance in the contentions that because PW-3 Shantaben and PW-4 Sumitraben are related witnesses to the deceased, their evidence should be discarded. As aforesaid, on careful scrutiny, this evidence is found trustworthy by us. 23. Though the above witnesses do not require any corroboration, still prosecution examined one independent witness, which fully corroborates the say of PW-3 Shantaben and PW-4 Sumitraben. PW-7 Kuchiyabhai Shankerbhai examined at Exh.19, is purely an independent witness and is not interested in either of the parties. The say of Kuchiyabhai Shankerbhai appears to be natural. Appreciating and considering his evidence, it is found that he was doing masonry work in the house of Chamrabhai, Sarpanch of the village. He witnessed this incident while he was doing this masonry work from about at a distance of 300 feet. The say of Kuchiyabhai Shankerbhai appears to be natural. Appreciating and considering his evidence, it is found that he was doing masonry work in the house of Chamrabhai, Sarpanch of the village. He witnessed this incident while he was doing this masonry work from about at a distance of 300 feet. He saw that appellant shot an arrow from a bow in the direction of the deceased who was standing below a mango tree, which struck the deceased and the deceased fell down. The reasons for witnessing the incident which Kuchiyabhai deposed appears to be believable. In his cross-examination, an attempt was made by the defence to test the witness whether it was possible for him to witness the incident from the place where he was doing masonry work. He emphatically stated that he could witness the incident and denied the allegation of the defence in cross-examination that he could not see the incident from the western wall of the house of the Chamrabhai. In his short deposition, he gave an account of the incident in a manner in which he witnessed which appears absolutely normal and natural. Neither defence could bring about any fact that this witness was only posing as an eye witness for some purpose nor on thorough scrutiny we could find anything from the record that there was any reason even remote which prompted Kuchiyabhai to depose against the appellant about the incident. Therefore, the evidence of this independent witness must be relied upon which in turn corroborates the evidence of PW-3 Shantaben and PW-4 Sumitraben. 24. This brings us to consider whether the evidence of PW-5 Arjunbhai Tetabhai and PW-6 Chhatrasinh Kesurbhai though prosecution proposed them as eye witnesses, did not support the prosecution case, would affect the evidence of three eye witnesses i.e. PW-3 Shantaben, PW-4 Sumitraben and PW-7 Kuchiyabhai Shankerbhai. On careful scrutiny, it transpires that these two witnesses turned hostile deliberately and were unwilling to state what they stated before the Police. This is evident from the cross-examination of the witnesses conducted by learned APP. Mere fact of turning these two witnesses hostile, would not at all affect the credible reliable and trustworthy evidence of PW-3 Shantaben, PW-3 Sumitraben and PW-7 Kuchiyabhai Shankerbhai. This is evident from the cross-examination of the witnesses conducted by learned APP. Mere fact of turning these two witnesses hostile, would not at all affect the credible reliable and trustworthy evidence of PW-3 Shantaben, PW-3 Sumitraben and PW-7 Kuchiyabhai Shankerbhai. As considered and appreciated aforesaid, the evidence of these three eye witnesses is worthy of acceptance while the evidence of hostile witnesses PW-5 Arjunbhai Tetabhai and PW-6 Chhatrasinh Kesurbhai deserves to be discarded. On scrutiny it is crystal clear that the evidence of PW-3 Shantaben, PW-4 Sumitraben and PW-7 Kuchiyabhai Shankerbhai is reliable and trustworthy grain while the evidence of PW-5 Arjunbhai Tetabhai and PW-6 Chhatrasinh Kesurbhai is the chaff and does not affect the weighty evidence of above eye witnesses. 25. Further, the evidence of PW-2 Dr.Bharatkumar Harsadroy Pandya, who conducted autopsy, evidence of panchnama of scene of offence and inquest panchnama and the evidence of Investigating Officer fully corroborate the evidence of PW-3 Shantaben, PW-4 Sumitraben and PW-7 Kuchiyabhai Shankerbhai. PW-2 Dr.Bharatkumar Harsadroy Pandya deposed that the external injury No.3 caused by arrow was fatal and sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. He also stated that while darting arrow, force was used, which corroborates the witnesses that the arrow was shot from near distance. Very important fact which is disclosed in the evidence of PW-2 Dr. Bharatkumar is that, the front sharpened part of arrow, which had remained in the body of the deceased was extricated by him during autopsy. He admitted that he did not mention this fact in postmortem note, but this is a simple human error and the fact stands established that the part of the arrow which penetrated the body of the deceased was extracted by PW-2 Dr. Bharatkumar. He opined that the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and injury to vital organs like lungs by it's penetration. When culpable homicide is established beyond doubt and when the direct evidence is trustworthy, there is no reason to doubt that the appellant shot arrow from near distance which struck on the stomach of the deceased, which caused his death. In further corroboration from the evidence of serological Department of the Forensic Science Laboratory, as produced at Exh. 28, it is found that the clothes of the deceased and the dhoti, article No.6, recovered from the accused contained bloodstains of same blood group i.e. "A" which was that of the deceased. In further corroboration from the evidence of serological Department of the Forensic Science Laboratory, as produced at Exh. 28, it is found that the clothes of the deceased and the dhoti, article No.6, recovered from the accused contained bloodstains of same blood group i.e. "A" which was that of the deceased. This suggests the proximity of appellant to the deceased at the time of offence. Though PW-9 Iqbalhussain and PW-10 Maheshbhai Manubhai panchas of Panchnama Exh.24 have not supported the prosecution case, but through the evidence of Jivabhai Hirabhai Parmar, Investigating Officer, it is amply proved that the mudammal dhoti was recovered from the appellant and was found bloodstained and was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. In further statement the appellant failed to explain these circumstances against him. 26. In view of the above discussion and reasoning, we are unable to accept contention on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and that if the case is proved against the appellant, the act may fall within the scope of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. On scrutiny as above, it is found that the appellant had required mens rea i.e. intention to cause bodily injury to the deceased. The evidence of the medical expert i.e. PW-2 Dr. Bharatkumar Harsadroy Pandya proves beyond doubt that injury caused to the deceased was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death and hence undoubtedly the case falls within Clause Thirdly of Section 300 which is punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We could not find any iota of evidence to even indicate that the act of the appellant may fall within the scope of Section 304. We, therefore, negative this contention also. 27. For the reasons stated above, this Appeal fails and stands dismissed.