Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1017 (GUJ)

Karmanbhai v. State of Gujarat

2016-05-06

BIREN VAISHNAV, K.S.JHAVERI

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, Camp at Limdi in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2009 dated 28.03.2012 whereby, the appellant, original accused, has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 302, 201 and 203 IPC and Section 135 of B.P. Act. For conviction u/s. 302 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, RI for six months. For conviction u/s. 201 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, RI for two months. For conviction u/s. 203 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, RI for three months. For conviction u/s. 135 BP Act, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs. 250/- and in default, RI for one month. All the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the sentence already undergone by the accused was given set-off. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under; "On 21.06.2009 at around 1900 hrs., the appellant herein and his wife-Jomiben went to a nearby Village for attending some social function. After attending the function, they left for their home on a motor-cycle at around 2300 hrs. While they were on the way, a Truck coming from the opposite direction dashed their motorcycle. In the said accident, Jomiben passed away. A complaint in connection with the aforesaid incident was lodged by the appellant herein before Sayla Police Station vide I-C.R. No. 78/2009. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of witnesses were recorded." 2.1 On receipt of the post-mortem report, the Investigating Officer found that the deceased died on account of stab wound injuries and not accidental injuries. On the basis of statements of witnesses, the appellant was arraigned as accused and he was arrested. At the end of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against him. However, since it was a sessions triable offence, the case was committed to Sessions Court and ultimately, trial was initiated. 3. During the trial, the prosecution had examined following witnesses; Wt. No. Name of witness Exhibit No. 1 Dr. Jitendrabhai Manilal Upadhyay 15 2 Dr. At the end of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against him. However, since it was a sessions triable offence, the case was committed to Sessions Court and ultimately, trial was initiated. 3. During the trial, the prosecution had examined following witnesses; Wt. No. Name of witness Exhibit No. 1 Dr. Jitendrabhai Manilal Upadhyay 15 2 Dr. Vipul Popatlal Ghanghar 19 3 Dr. Dineshkumar Raghavbhai Makwana 25 4 Vashrambhai Rambhai Rabari 33 5 Dalpat & Dalsukh Bhojabhai Prajapati 35 6 Saatiben w/o. Kanjibhai Vashrambhai Rabari 37 7 Madhubhai Anakbhai Khavad 39 8 Kanubhai Jethsurbhai Khavad 41 9 Aalkubhai Punjabhai Khavad 43 10 Bhagubhai Bhupatbhai Khavad 47 11 Babbhai Daadbhai Khavad 56 12 Vanrajbhai Nanbhai Khachar 57 13 Tulsibhai Ukabhai Solanki 61 14 Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Dekavadiya 63 15 Pratapbhai Thebbhai Khachar 64 16 Sondabhai Becharbhai Rojiya 17 Potiben w/o. Sondabhai Rabari 74 18 Nasiben w/o. Lalabhai Rabari 76 19 Jorubhai Ramubha Jhala 78 20 Hasankhan Alimiya Kureshi 81 21 Madhubha Jivubha Rana 83 22 Shambubhai Vashrambhai Ranjoliya 88 23 Jodhsinh Nanjibhai Kamol 101 4. The prosecution had produced and relied upon several documentary evidence, particularly, the post-mortem report at Exh. 16, panchnama of scene of offence at Exh. 34 & 58, inquest panchnama at Exh. 36, discovery panchnama at Exh. 44 & 62, statement of Sondabhai Becharbhai at Exh. 67, complaint at Exh. 80, FSL Report at Exh. 98 and Serological Report at Exh. 100. 5. At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statement of appellant-accused u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order, which has led to the filing of present appeal. 6. Mr. H.C. Buch, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of accused. It was submitted that there is nothing on record to connect the appellant with the alleged offence and therefore, the appellant may be acquitted of all the charges by granting him the benefit of doubt. 7. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP, supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the evidence of Sondabhai Becharbhai Rojiya (PW-16) and Potiben w/o. Sondabhai Rabari (PW-17) establish that the appellant was ill-treating the deceased. 7. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP, supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the evidence of Sondabhai Becharbhai Rojiya (PW-16) and Potiben w/o. Sondabhai Rabari (PW-17) establish that the appellant was ill-treating the deceased. It was submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish the chain of circumstances from the evidence available on record and therefore, the Court below has rightly convicted the appellant for the crime in question. It was, therefore, prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed 8. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the evidence on record. The Postmortem report of deceased has been produced on record vide Exh. 16. From the said report, it transpires that the deceased had sustained 15 external injuries over her body. Dr. Jitendrabhai Manilal Upadhyay (PW-1) is the Medical Officer who performed the autopsy of deceased. He has categorically opined that all the 15 injuries found over the dead body were possible with the muddamal weapon knife. Thus, it is established that the deceased died a homicidal death. 9. It appears from the record that initially the death of deceased was reported as an accidental death. However, on the basis of the Postmortem report of deceased and the statement of witnesses, it was realized that the deceased died a homicidal death. The prosecution examined Nasiben w/o. Lalabhai Rabari (PW-18), who happens to be a relative of deceased and at whose home the appellant and deceased had gone for attending some social function. The 'marnottar' form (Exh. 32) shows that the deceased died on 22.06.2009 at around 0130 hrs. and the evidence of Nasiben (PW-18) proves that the deceased was at her residence up to 2300 hrs. on the earlier day. Thus, it is established that the deceased was in the company of appellant during the period between 2300 hrs. to 0130 hrs. Thus, the evidence of PW-18 proves that the deceased was last seen together with the appellant. 10. In the present case, the conduct of the appellant-accused is also very strange. In the complaint (Exh. 80), the appellant had stated that the accident was caused by a Truck (Dumper). Thereafter, in his statement, he reported that his motor-cycle dashed the side-wall of a canal. 10. In the present case, the conduct of the appellant-accused is also very strange. In the complaint (Exh. 80), the appellant had stated that the accident was caused by a Truck (Dumper). Thereafter, in his statement, he reported that his motor-cycle dashed the side-wall of a canal. However, in his further statement, he reported that on the date of alleged incident, his motorcycle met with some technical problem after reaching Village Muli and therefore, his wife (deceased) went to their home in some other vehicle and it was thereafter, that the motorcycle met with an accident. From the above facts, it is evident that the appellant has gone on improving his version in his different statements. It is highly improbable that any husband would leave his wife, aged around 25 years, at a public place and that to in the midnight hours for traveling in some unknown vehicle. The above conduct of the appellant speaks volumes about his ill-intention and ill-design. 11. Though the Panchas to the discovery panchnama and panchnama of scene of offence have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile but, the same has been proved by the Investigating Officer. Thus, the prosecution has been successful in establishing the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of appellant. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at in the impugned judgment and hence, find no reasons to entertain this appeal. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that imprisonment for life shall not mean imprisonment till the last breath and that the State may grant benefit of remission to the appellant-accused at the appropriate time. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Records and proceedings, if lying here, be sent to the Court below forthwith.