Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 699 (GUJ)

PATEL MUKESHKUMAR SHIVABHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2012-09-26

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.B.PARDIWALA

body2012
JUDGMENT MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of a convicted person and is directed against the order of conviction and the consequent sentence dated June 20, 2006, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2006, by which the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [“IPC” for short] and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. It was stipulated that in default of payment of fine, the accused should suffer imprisonment for further six months. 2. The case made out by the prosecution may be summed up thus:- 2.1 One Kantaben Kantiji Thakore, residing at Langnaj, had lodged a complaint on November 30, 2005, by which she stated that her husband had died three years earlier and had two sons and one daughter. Her parents had already died and she had three other married sisters and one brother. The complainant was living with her brother and the said brother was cultivating the joint land of Patel Mukeshbhai Shivabhai on share basis. The complainant further stated that her brother had sowed the wheat in the field of Mukeshbhai Shivabhai and was going to the field for the last ten days to protect the field as night watchman. According to the complainant, the accused wanted to establish an illicit relation with her. The accused was previously living in front of the house of the complainant and used to look at her with evil intention and visit her house frequently. On the date of lodging of the complaint at 7.30 hrs. in the morning, one Goswami Vikrambhai of her village came to her house and stated that her brother, Kantiji, was lying in the small canal of the field and that he was not speaking. Therefore, the complainant sent her nephew Sendhaji and other persons to look into the matter. They came back and stated that Kantiji had been murdered. The deceased had sustained injuries on the forehead and the head, blood was oozing out, he was lying upside down in the small canal and a blood-stained wooden stick was lying in split condition near a cot. The complainant immediately went to the field and on making inquiry about Mukeshbhai, he was not found. The deceased had sustained injuries on the forehead and the head, blood was oozing out, he was lying upside down in the small canal and a blood-stained wooden stick was lying in split condition near a cot. The complainant immediately went to the field and on making inquiry about Mukeshbhai, he was not found. Empty plastic bags of liquor were lying near the dead body of her brother. According to the complainant, as she was a widow, the accused used to harass her frequently in order to have illicit relation with her and such fact was communicated by the complainant to her brother twice or thrice and for that reason, there was an altercation between her brother and the accused and consequently, her brother was murdered. 2.2 On lodging of such complaint, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station had drawn a panchnma of the place of offence, seized the muddamal and a panchnama in that regard was also drawn and the accused was arrested as sufficient evidence against him was found. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Mehsana. 2.3 As the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana, committed the case under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [“Code” for short] to the court of Session. 2.4 The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 2.5 The prosecution submitted oral evidence of the following 11 persons in support of its case: PW No. Name of witness Exh. No. 1 Kantaben Kantiji Thakor, the Complainant 5 2 Kantiji Kachraji Thakor a relative of the complainant 7 3 Govindbhai Joitaram Panch witness of inqeuest panchnama 8 4. Dr. Kaushik Chandrakantbhai Zala, the Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem 10 5. Vikrambharthi Mulbharthi Goswami, the witness who saw the victim lying near shedha and informed the complainant about his condition 14 6. Senghaji Bhopaji Thakor, the nephew of the complainant 15 7. Sovanbhai Kalaji, a panch witness of panchnama of place of incident 16 8. Arjanji Hiraji, a Panch witness of arrest panchnama 18 9. Sumanbhai Shivabhai Raval, a Panch witness of panchnama of recovery of clothes of panchnama of recovery of clothes of the deceased 20 10. Prahladji Bhopaji Thakor, the nephew of the complainant 22 11. Sovanbhai Kalaji, a panch witness of panchnama of place of incident 16 8. Arjanji Hiraji, a Panch witness of arrest panchnama 18 9. Sumanbhai Shivabhai Raval, a Panch witness of panchnama of recovery of clothes of panchnama of recovery of clothes of the deceased 20 10. Prahladji Bhopaji Thakor, the nephew of the complainant 22 11. Keshabhai Punjabhai, the Investigating Officer 23 2.6 The prosecution also produced the following pieces of documentary evidence in support of its case:- Sr. No. Description of document Exh. 1. Original Complaint 6 2. Inquest panchnama 9 3. Post mortem note of the deceased 11 4. Police yadi written to the Medical Officer requesting for carrying out the post mortem 12 5. Post Mortem Form 13 6. Panchanama of the place of offence 17 7. Panchnama of the seizure of shirt of the accused 19 8. Panchnama of seizure of clothes of the deceased 21 9. Dispatch entry 24 10. Receipt of muddamal received 25 11. Map of the place of offence 27 12. Report of FSL 27 2.7 After the closure of evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code, wherein he denied the evidence of the prosecution. The accused, however, did not give evidence in support of his defence. 2.8 As pointed out earlier, the learned Sessions Judge, by the order impugned herein, found the appellant guilty of murder and passed the order of sentence as mentioned earlier. 2.9 Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come up with the present appeal. 3. Mrs. Rekha Kapadia, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously contended before us that in the absence of any eyewitness to the incident, the learned Sessions Judge committed gross error in finding the appellant guilty merely on the basis of suspicion. Mrs. Kapadia contended that in this case, the prosecution had failed to prove that her client was involved in the offence in any way and simply because the deceased used to cultivate the land of the appellant, such fact could not lead to a conclusion that the deceased was killed by the appellant. Mrs. Kapadia further submitted that there was no justification of believing the complainant and her nephews who were interested in grabbing the property of the accused. Mrs. Kapadia, therefore, prays for setting aside the order of conviction and allowing the appeal. 4. Ms. Mrs. Kapadia further submitted that there was no justification of believing the complainant and her nephews who were interested in grabbing the property of the accused. Mrs. Kapadia, therefore, prays for setting aside the order of conviction and allowing the appeal. 4. Ms. Krina Calla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the prosecution, has, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contention of Mrs. Kapadia and has contended that it has been well established from the evidence on record that the accused had evil motive to have illicit relationship with the complainant, the sister of the deceased and the deceased having resisted such act, the accused, tempted the deceased by saying that he would be given liquor, took him to the field in the night and killed him. According to Ms. Calla, from the evidence it has been established that the accused used to harass the sister of the deceased and in the past, he even knocked the door of the complainant, as a result, the complainant had asked her brother not to go to the field at night for the purpose of watching the crops. Ms. Calla further submitted that it has also been established from the evidence on record that the accused had taken the deceased on the previous night to the field and thus, they were last seen together and on the next day, the deceased was found dead. According to Ms. Calla, burnt bidis [native cigarette] found from the place of occurrence have established the fact that those had been smoked by the accused as it would appear from the presence of his saliva as appearing from the FSL report. In such circumstances, according to Ms. Calla, we should not interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the materials on record, was justified in finding the appellant guilty and imposing the sentence. 6. PW.1 is Kantaben, the complainant. In her examination-in-chief she has reiterated her complaint and has stated that on the previous night of the incident, when her brother was at home, the accused came to call him him by tempting to give liquor. However, as her brother refused to go, the accused took him out for consuming liquor by pulling his hands. In her examination-in-chief she has reiterated her complaint and has stated that on the previous night of the incident, when her brother was at home, the accused came to call him him by tempting to give liquor. However, as her brother refused to go, the accused took him out for consuming liquor by pulling his hands. Thereafter, in the next morning, one Vikram Maharaj came to her house and told her that her brother was lying in the field and was not responding. Subsequently, she sent Sendhaji and Prahladji, sons of her brother-in-law [Jeth], to see her brother. They went to the place and told her that her brother, Kantaji, was no more. 6.1 In her cross-examination, she stated that she gave the complaint at the instance of her nephews, Sendhaji and Prahladji and that Prahladji and Sendhaji and other family members dictated the facts of the complaint after going to the police. She has denied the suggestion that she falsely stated that the intention of the accused was not good. She also denied the suggestion that the accused did not knock the door at night. She admitted that her brother had the habit of consuming liquor, smoking bidi and taking gutkha. She further stated that her brother ate roti and vegetable at night, and thereafter between 9.00 PM and 9.30 PM, the accused came to call him him and took her brother with him. She has denied the suggestion that the accused did not take her brother by pulling his hand. 6.2 By referring to the aforesaid statement that Sendhaji and Prahladji and other family members dictated the facts of the complaint, Ms. Kapadia tried to convince us that the complaint was in fact dictated not by the complainant but by others. We, however, find that the complainant being a widow and uneducated, there is nothing unnatural to take her nephews and other family members to the police station to dictate the incident in the complaint which was endorsed by the complainant herself by putting thumb impression. We also find from the deposition of this witness that her evidence is corroborated by the post mortem report that undigested food was found in the stomach of the deceased. 7. PW.2, Kantiji, is a person of the locality. We also find from the deposition of this witness that her evidence is corroborated by the post mortem report that undigested food was found in the stomach of the deceased. 7. PW.2, Kantiji, is a person of the locality. He has also confirmed the fact that after the death of the complainant's husband, she was living with her brother who was doing agricultural labour work in the land of the accused. He has stated that Sendhaji and Prahladji came to him and stated that the Kantiji, the brother of the complainant, was lying dead in the field and thereafter, he went to the field, found the deceased lying in the field, and confirmed such incident to the complainant. 7.1 In his cross-examination, he stated that the distance between his house and that of the complainant is 300 to 400 ft. He denied the suggestion that he was giving false deposition at the instance of the complainant because the complainant is his relative. 8. PW.3, Govindbhai, is one of the witnesses of the dead-body. The defence could not bring out anything which would discredit his deposition. 9. PW.4, Dr. Kaushik, is the Doctor who performed the autopsy of the dead-body. He has stated that the following injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased: [1]. Cut and crushed wound of about 1 cm on the eyebrow of the left eye, and blood was clotted on the wound. [2]. Cut and crushed would of about 1 X 1 cm below the left eye. [3]. Cut and crushed wound near eyebrow on the right eye. [4]. A cut, crushed and blood clotted wound of about 2 X 2 cms on the upper lip and in nose. [5]. Swelling on chest. [6]. Upper second number teeth was broken. [7]. Skin on abdomen and chest was found block and red. [8]. An abrasion in upper part of elbow on right hand. [9]. A swelling on wrist part and blood was clotted on it. [10]. A fracture in left hand at upper part on elbow. 9.1 The Doctor has stated that the injuries were ante-mortem. This witness has further stated that food material and liquid were seen in the stomach, semi-digested food material was seen in the small intestine and stool material and gas were found in the big intestine. [10]. A fracture in left hand at upper part on elbow. 9.1 The Doctor has stated that the injuries were ante-mortem. This witness has further stated that food material and liquid were seen in the stomach, semi-digested food material was seen in the small intestine and stool material and gas were found in the big intestine. He has further stated that the death might have occurred within 14 hours of conducting the post mortem [which commenced on 30.11.2005 at 14.40 hours and completed at 16.00 hours]. The Doctor has accepted the suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused that the injuries No. 1 to 9 are possible if a person is hit by a club and injury No.8 can be caused by dragging. He has stated that the cause of death is hemorrhage and shock. 9.2 In his cross-examination, a suggestion was given to him that if a person stumbles frequently after consuming liquor and hits with the ground, the injuries could be sustained, which he accepted. He has also stated in the cross-examination that the health of the deceased was normal and he agreed with the fact that death cannot be occurred in ordinary course of nature only due to breakage of five ribs. He has denied the suggestion that the injuries on the body of the deceased were not sufficient for the cause of his death. On the basis of the process of rigor mortis and food particles found from stomach, the Doctor has opined that the death occurred before 14 hours of the post mortem. 9.3 Thus, the medical evidence supports the prosecution case regarding the time of the incident and there is no inconsistency in the deposition of this witness with the deposition given by the complainant and other witnesses and the facts stated in the complaint. 10. PW.5 is one Vikrambharathi. He had been working as a Bore Operator for the last ten years in the outskirts of village Langnaj. He has stated that in addition to working as a bore operator, he also used to do sowing operations in the farms by keeping the farms for sowing on lump sum basis. According to this witness, sowing operation was done by the deceased in the land of the accused. He has stated that in addition to working as a bore operator, he also used to do sowing operations in the farms by keeping the farms for sowing on lump sum basis. According to this witness, sowing operation was done by the deceased in the land of the accused. According to him, at 7.00 AM after the date of occurrence, he went to take a round in the farm, he saw the deceased lying in a upside down position and he shouted for him but he was not responding. He, therefore, went back and informed this fact to the sister of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that as the complainant belongs to his village, and for that reason, he gave deposition at her behest. 11. PW.6, Sendhaji, has stated that the complainant, Kantaben, is his aunt and after the death of her husband, the complainant was residing with the deceased, his maternal uncle. He has stated that the deceased used to do farming work in the field of the accused on share basis. He has stated that the deceased used to stay in the farm to keep watch of the crop and came back home from the farm on the 11th day of such night watch and when he came home, his aunt told the deceased about the fact that on the previous night at 9 O'clock, the deceased came and knocked at the door but she did not open the door. The deceased, therefore, scolded the accused. He has further stated that the accused compelled the deceased to go out with him to the galla, but as the deceased refused to accompany the accused, he tempted the deceased by offering to give him liquor, pulled the hands of the deceased and took the deceased with him. His aunt told him to see where they were going and therefore, he followed them. The accused and the deceased went to the galla and took gutkha and bidi and the deceased and the accused went to the field for keeping night watch. On the next morning, one Vikrambharati of the locality informed him that the deceased was lying in the farm, and therefore, he went there. He has further stated that he had seen the accused on the previous night of the occurrence. On the next morning, one Vikrambharati of the locality informed him that the deceased was lying in the farm, and therefore, he went there. He has further stated that he had seen the accused on the previous night of the occurrence. 11.1 In his cross-examination he has stated that his house and the house of the complainant are adjoining and there is only a small distance between the two houses. He has denied the suggestion that a false case has been filed implicating the accused with a view to usurping his property. He has also denied the suggestion that he gave false evidence as the deceased was his maternal uncle and the complainant was his aunt. 12. PW.7, Sovanbhai, is a panch witness to the seizure of bloodstained earth and control earth. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination by the defence which would discredit his deposition. 13. Arjanji is PW.8. He is also a panch witness to the recovery of wearing apparel of the accused, which contained blood-stains of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that when he went to the police station, the jersey of the accused was already lying there. 14. Sumanbhai is PW. 9. He is a panch witness to the seizure of clothes of the deceased given by the Doctor to the Police. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he remained as a panch witness at the instance of the complainant. He denied a suggestion that he made signature in a ready panchnama at the instance of the police. 15. PW.10 is Prahladji. The complainant is his aunt and the deceased was his maternal uncle. He stated that he and his brother, Sendhaji, were present at the house on the previous day of the occurrence. The accused came at about 1 O'clock and knocked the door of his aunt's house and his aunt told about this fact to the maternal uncle. He, therefore, did not go to the farm for night watch but remained at the house. On the next day, the accused came to his aunt's house for calling the deceased to go to the farm during the night and the accused dragged the deceased by pulling his hands. His aunt, therefore, sent him and his brother behind them. The deceased and the accused went to the pan parlour, took bidi from there and went towards the farm. His aunt, therefore, sent him and his brother behind them. The deceased and the accused went to the pan parlour, took bidi from there and went towards the farm. Thereafter, Vimrakbharthi came to his aunt's house and told the fact that his uncle was lying in the water course. Therefore, he, his brother and other persons went to that place and saw the deceased lying in the field. 15.1 In the cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he falsely stated that the accused took away his maternal uncle by dragging or that he gave false deposition. 16. PW.11 is the Investigating Officer. He has proved the investigation. 17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses but there is no eyewitness to the incident. However, it has been proved from the evidence on record that on the previous night, the deceased was unwilling to go to the field for watching the crops as the accused was disturbing his sister during the night by taking advantage of his absence for performing the duty of night guard. It has further been proved that it was the accused who tempted the deceased to go to the field by saying that he would be given liquor. It has also been established from the record that burnt bidis found from the scene of offence contained saliva of a person having “B” Blood Group, whereas the accused had such “B” Blood Group. It further appears that the bloodstained wearing apparel of the accused was recovered from the house of the accused which contained blood group of “AB”, which is of the deceased. Such being the position, if we take into consideration the fact that the deceased, the brother of the complainant, was given the job of cultivation by the accused and the dead-body was lying in the field of the accused, there is no dispute that the victim was a labourer in the field of the accused. From the evidence of the complainant, we do not find any reason to disbelieve her version that the accused proposed illicit relation and for that reason, the accused offered a right of cultivation to the deceased in his field in the expectation that the deceased, the brother of the complainant, would not raise any objection in his illicit relations. From the evidence of the complainant, we do not find any reason to disbelieve her version that the accused proposed illicit relation and for that reason, the accused offered a right of cultivation to the deceased in his field in the expectation that the deceased, the brother of the complainant, would not raise any objection in his illicit relations. We also do not find any reason to disbelieve the other prosecution witnesses apart from the complainant who had seen that in the previous night, it was the accused who took away the victim from the house of the complainant for the purpose of guarding the standing crops. 18. In this case, all the panch witnesses were consistent in their depositions regarding recovery of the muddamals and the defence of the appellant that he has been implicated falsely in the offence by the complainant for the purpose of grabbing his land, is an absurd story. It appears that it was the accused who offered the deceased to cultivate his land only after the complainant lost her husband and came back to live with her brother and there was no dispute between the accused and the deceased over such cultivation. The only dispute that has been brought on record is regarding evil intention on the part of the accused to have illicit relation with the complainant, the sister of the deceased, which was opposed by the deceased. 19. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, find that in this case, it has been well proved that the complainant was a young widow; that the accused offered her brother, the deceased, before one and a half year prior to the incident to cultivate the land on share basis when the complainant, after the death of her husband, came back to the family of the deceased. It has further been established that his dead-body was found in the field of the accused, where he was indisputably serving as watchman of the crop during the night. 20. Although Mrs. Kapadia tried to convince us that the death occurred because the victim had, in a drunken stage, fallen on the field, we are not at all impressed by such submission for the simple reason that it has appeared that two of the ribs and a portion of the shoulder of the victim were broken by a lathi. 20. Although Mrs. Kapadia tried to convince us that the death occurred because the victim had, in a drunken stage, fallen on the field, we are not at all impressed by such submission for the simple reason that it has appeared that two of the ribs and a portion of the shoulder of the victim were broken by a lathi. Moreover, from the stomach of the victim, no alcohol was found. Therefore, we find substance in the contention of Ms. Calla that although the victim was tempted to be given alcohol, but in fact, before consuming the alcohol, he was killed as he was standing in the way of the accused in having illicit relation with the complainant, the sister of the victim. 21. We, thus, find that the learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the entire materials on record, quite reasonably found the appellant guilty and we find no reason to interfere with such finding and the consequent imposition of the sentence. 22. The appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed.