State Of Gujarat vs Gokal Pitamber

A.S. Supehia, J

The present appeal emanates from the judgement and order of acquittal dated 20.09.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No.126 of 1994 acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence, for which he was charged under Sections 302, 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

The case of the prosecution, as per the charge below Exh.3 is that the respondent-accused on 22.09.1994 in the night at 12 o'clock had murdered one Labhu Ramsinh, after altercation, with a knife at village Nava Kuda, Taluka Dhrangadhra, Dist.Surendranagar.

The trial Court, after examining 18 witnesses, and documentary evidence, acquitted the respondent-accused by giving him benefit of doubt. The State has assailed such judgement and order of acquittal by way of the present appeal.

Learned APP, at the outset, has submitted that the trial Court has erroneously acquitted the respondent-accused for the offence, for which he was charged. While referring to the deposition of PW-3-Vashram Ramsing, who is the complainant, he has submitted that his evidence would reveal that he has seen the accused running away from the place of incident. It is submitted that on the date of incident, there were other witnesses in the village and they have seen the accused running away, after inflicting blow of knife on the deceased. He has further referred to the deposition of PW-6-Harjibhai Ramsing below Exh.24, who is the brother of the deceased. He has submitted that in fact, from his deposition, it is revealed that he is the eye witness and has seen the accused running away, after inflicting the blow of the knife in the stomach of the deceased. It is submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of PW-6-Harjibhai Ramsing in its true perspective and hence, the acquittal recorded by the trial Court is required to be reversed.

Further reference is made to the deposition of PW-7-Devkaran Odhabhai, which is recorded below Exh.25. It is submitted that he has categorically deposed that they were sitting at the stairs of the school and at that time, the deceased had come over there and thereafter, one Khoto @ Naran and Bhikha Kana came and Bhika Kana had ordered tea from the hotel of Laghra Narsi. It is further narrated by him in is examination-in-chief that at that time, the accused had also come and who was also warned by the deceased not to use Hindi language as some old lady has passed away and thereafter, there was some scuffle between them. It is further narrated that the accused has inflicted knife blow on the left hand of Bhikha Kana and after inflicting such blow, the accused went from there towards the house of the deceased. It is further narrated therein that the deceased had followed the accused and after sometime, they heard loud cries and they went there and saw the deceased lying there.

Learned APP has further placed reliance on the deposition of PW-9-Khodabhai Laghrabhai in support of his submissions. He has submitted that the said deposition would reveal that the incident has occurred. Over and above the aforesaid submissions, learned APP has further submitted that discovery of knife is also proved and the FSL report below Exh.21 also indicates that the blood of the deceased was found on the knife. Thus, it is submitted by him that the acquittal recorded by the trial Court is required to be reversed.

Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Ranpara has submitted that the impugned judgement and order does not require any interference as the acquittal recorded by the trial Court is appropriate. It is submitted that the evidence does not in any manner reveals complicity of the respondent-accused in the offence. It is submitted that as such there is no eye witness of the alleged offence, which would directly implicate the accused. He has further submitted that this Court may not reverse the acquittal judgement and order since the same is premised on the precise appreciation of the evidence, both oral as well as documentary evidence.

We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.

As per the case of the prosecution, on 22.09.1994 in the night at 12 o'clock, the respondent- accused murdered one Labhu Ramsinh, after altercation, by inflicting blow with a knife at village Nava Kuda, Taluka Dhrangadhra, Dist.Surendranagar. The star witness of the prosecution is PW-6-Harji Ramsing, who is, as per the case of the prosecution, is the eye witness. We have examined his evidence at Exh.24. Though in his examination-in-chief, he has narrated that the accused had inflicted knife blow on his brother and has also accordingly chased the accused for 30-40 feet however, in his cross-examination, it is elicited that he did not chase the accused. It is further elicited that the scene of offence cannot be witnessed from the point, where he was sitting i.e. on the platform of Ramapir. It is further elicited that he did not inform the complainant, who is the elder brother Vasram Ramsing, that he has seen the accused inflicting knife blow on the deceased. Thus, his evidence does not in any manner inspire confidence or suggest that he has actually seen the incident. Similarly, we have examined the deposition of the other witnesses i.e. PW-4, Bhikhabhai Kanabhai Patel, PW-7-Devkaran Odhabhai and PW-9-Khodabhai Laghrabhai. None of the witnesses have actually seen the accused inflicting blow of knife on the deceased. The testimony of injured witness, PW also does not inspire confidence. He is not examined by the doctor. In fact he has stated that he was sleeping at home in the night, and he did not talk to any one of the incident, and when he returned from home, at that time many persons have gathered at the place of incident. The evidence also reveals that the incident has occurred at 12 o'clock at night and there was absolutely dark. The evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-18 also reveals that there was no light at the place of the incident. The prosecution has further tried to canvas their case on the discovery of knife by placing reliance on the discovery panchnama, Exh.40. PW-14, one of the panch witness, in his evidence below Exh.38, has deposed that the knife was recovered from a bush near electric poll however, in the cross-examination, he has specifically stated that the knife has been recovered from the open place. Moreover, it is also noticed by us that the discovery panchnama does not satisfy ingredients of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, since the exact statement of the accused has not been recorded. The trial Court has also disbelieved the discovery panchnama. Even if the recovery of knife is proved as per the deposition of the panch witnesses and the I.O, the same by itself would not be sufficient enough to convict the respondent-accused for serious offence like murder which invites harsh punishment since it is a corroborative piece of evidence.

Thus, we are in complete disagreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court. The prosecution is unable to bring home the charges against the accused. We do not find that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court suffers any infirmity and perversity.

The present appeal fails. The same is hereby dismissed. Record and proceedings to be sent