CR.A/106519/1997 1/11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1065 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI ================================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any Order made thereunder? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? NO ================================================= = PRABHATBHAI MAYJIBHAI CHAUHAN - Appellant Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent ================================================= =Appearance : MR CHIRAG M PAWAR for the Appellant. MS DARSHANA PANDIT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent. ================================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Date : 26/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CR.A/106519/1997 2/11 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI) 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Sessions Case No. 56 of 1997 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short) and imposed RI for life and fine of Rs. 500, in default RI for 3 months and under Section 201, RI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default RI for 3 months. Being aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are stated hereinbelow: The appellant, after his marriage with Railiben, used to inflict mental and physical torture on flimsy grounds. On 13- 10-1996, during the Navratri festival at 8 O'clock, he had quarrel with Railiben and during the quarrel, gave stick-blows to the deceased in the abdomen as well as in the private part of her body. As the appellant gave stick-blows to the private part of the deceased, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and thus, the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After committing gruesome murder, with a view to destroy the evidence, he dug up a pit and placed the dead body of the deceased in the said pit and, thus, he also committed offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. The complaint was given by Ratansinh Kaluba, Unarmed Head Constable, Kalol Police Station on 13-01-1997. In pursuance of CR.A/106519/1997 3/11 JUDGMENT the said complaint, the investigation was set in motion. The place where the incident had taken place was visited and the panchnama in respect of the place of the incident was prepared in the presence of panch-witnesses. The discovery panchnama of the stick which was used in the commission of offence was prepared by the Investigating Officer in the present of the panch-witnesses. The dead body which was buried in the court-yard of the house was also shown to the Investigating Officer by the accused. The inquest panchnama as well as the panchnama of the seizure of the clothes put on by the deceased was prepared in the presence of the panch- witnesses. The dead body was sent to the Vejalpur Hospital for the purpose of autopsy. On completion of the entire investigation and on the receipt of the post-mortem report, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. When the appellant was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on completion of the entire investigation, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code as the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. 3. The charge against the appellant has been framed for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide Exh. 2 and the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him vide Exh. 3 to the present case. The case was, thereafter, set down for the full- fledged trial before the Sessions Judge. 4. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses in order to bring home the guilt against the CR.A/106519/1997 4/11 JUDGMENT appellant:- (i) PW-1 – Dr. Kananabala Saryuprasad vide Exh. 7. (ii) PW-2 – Ratansinh Kalubhai vide Exh. 10. (iii) PW-3 – Chandrasinh Parvatsinh vide Exh. 12. (iv) PW-4 – Ramsinh Kalubhai vide Exh. 15. (v) PW-5 – Mahipatsinh Kalusinh vide Exh. 16 (vi) PW-6 - Dolatsinh Bhupatsinh vide Exh. 18. (vii) PW-7 – Meenaben Arjunsinh vide Exh. 28. (viii) PW-8 - Mohanbhai Motibhai Mavi vide Exh. 29. 5. The prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence: (i) Complaint given by PW-2 – Ratansinh Kalubhai vide Exh. 11. (i) Post-Mortem Report of the deceased vide Exh. 9. (ii) Inquest panchnama vide Exh. 20. (iii) Panchnama of the place of incident and the clothes put on by the deceased vide Exhs. 22 and 24 respectively to the present case. 6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Godhra recorded statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and narrated the incriminating evidence against the appellant. The appellant in the further statement under Section 313 stated that a false case was foisted on him and he was falsely implicated in the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. CR.A/106519/1997 5/11 JUDGMENT 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the oral deposition and the documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution and held that the incident in question took place on 13-10-1996 during the Navratri festival at about 8 O'clock at night. The appellant, because of the quarrel with the deceased Railiben, gave kick blows on the abdomen as well as stick-blows in the private part of the deceased which resulted in her death and held that the prosecution has, by adducing oral deposition, successfully proved involvement of the appellant in the commission of offences. The learned Judge further held that after brutally murdering his wife, the appellant dug up the pit in the premises and buried dead body in the said pit and has thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge held that the deposition adduced by the prosecution, if perused along with the documentary evidence, then the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as the cogent and conclusive evidence was adduced by the prosecution, the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further RI for 3 months while under Section 201, the learned Judge imposed the sentence of RI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, 3 months RI. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Chirag Pawar on behalf of the appellant submitted that the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in order to bring home the guilt against the appellant. Considering the deposition adduced by PW-1 Dr. Kananabala Suryaprasad at Exh. 7, PW-2 Ratansing Kalubhai at CR.A/106519/1997 6/11 JUDGMENT Exh. 10, PW-3 Chandrasing Parvansing at Exh. 12, PW-4 Ramsinh Kalubhai at Exh. 15, PW-5 Mahipatsinh Kalusinh at Exh. 16, PW-6 Dolatsinh Bhupatsinh at Exh. 18, PW-7 – Meenaben Arjunsinh vide Exh. 28 and PW-8 - Mohanbhai Motibhai Mavi vide Exh. 29, the prosecution has not established the entire link connecting the appellant with the commission of offence and, therefore, the benefit of doubt is required to be given to the appellant. The learned Advocate submitted that the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution bristles with contradictions and, therefore, the appellant is required to be exonerated for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate submitted that on perusal of the complaint at Exh. 11, PM report at Exh. 8, the panchnama of the place of incident at Exh. 22, inquest panchnama at Exh. 20 and the panchnama of the clothes put on by the deceased at Exh. 24, the prosecution could not be establish the involvement of the appellant in the ghastly murder of his wife on 13-10-1996 and, therefore, the benefit of doubt is required to be given to the appellant. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Darshana Pandit representing the respondent-State submitted that the prosecution has adduced convincing evidence in the form of PW-1 Dr. Kananabala Suryaprasad at Exh. 7, PW-2 Ratansing Kalubhai at Exh. 10, PW-3 Chandrasing Parvansing at Exh. 12, PW-4 Ramsinh Kalubhai at Exh. 15, PW-5 Mahipatsinh Kalusinh at Exh. 16, PW-6 Dolatsinh Bhupatsinh at Exh. 18, PW-7 – Meenaben Arjunsinh vide Exh. 28 and PW-8 - Mohanbhai Motibhai Mavi vide Exh. 29 so as to prove the inextricable involvement of the appellant in the commission of offences. CR.A/106519/1997 7/11 JUDGMENT The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that PW-1 Dr. Kananabala Suryaprasad has deposed in her testimony that on 13-01-1997 when she was working in the Primary Health Centre, she was informed by Police Constable of Vejalpur that one dead body was found buried in Mavdi village in the house. Thereafter, she went to the place where the dead body was buried. The injuries sustained by the deceased was seen by PW-1 Dr. Kananabala Suryaprasad and the same has been extensively narrated in her deposition. She had identified the stick which was used in the commission of offences as well as the clothes put on by the deceased during the course of her deposition. The deposition adduced by PW-1 Dr. Kananabala Suryaprasad is supported by the PM note which is produced at Exh. 8. The injuries sustained by the deceased has been narrated in column No. 23 as “Neurohaemorrhagic shock” due to injury over back leading to death. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further placed reliance on the deposition adduced by PW-2 Ratansing Kalubhai at Exh. 10. On perusal of the deposition adduced by this witness, it becomes clear that the dead body of the deceased Railiben was placed in the pit in the house and Dr. Kananabala was called to the place of incident. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the deposition adduced by PW-3 Chandrasing Parvansinh and submitted that he has deposed in his testimony about the quarrel which took place between the appellant and his wife as the deceased was not traceable during the Navratri festival. The search was carried out and ultimately the complaint was also registered in the police station. The deposition adduced by PW-4 Ramsinh Kalubhai at Exh. 15 also CR.A/106519/1997 8/11 JUDGMENT supports the prosecution case about the quarrel which took place between the appellant and the deceased. PW-5 Mahipatsinh Kalusinh examined at Exh. 16 also supports the prosecution story about the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. PW-5 Mahipatsinh is the panch-witness who was called at the place from where dead body of the deceased was extricated and the stick which was used in the commission was also taken out by the appellant. PW-6 Dolatsinh Bhupatsinh is examined at Exh. 18 and he is the PSI who was working in the Kalol Police Station on 13-01-1997 when the incident in question took place. As per the say of PW- 5 Dolatsinh Bhupatsinh, the investigation was carried out in pursuance of the complaint filed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and he visited the place of incident and prepared the panchnama in the presence of panch-witnesses. He had extracted the dead body of the deceased. PW-7 – Meenaben Arjunsinh vide Exh. 28 supports the story about the quarrel which took place between the appellant and his wife while the deposition adduced by PW-8 – Mohanbhai Motibhai Mavi supports the prosecution version with regard to the place of incident and the panchnama which was prepared with regard to the place of incident. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint is produced vide Exh. 11 and it was given by PW-2 Ratansinh Kalubhai, Unarmed Constable and it is supported by the panchnama of the place of incident, inquest panchnama and the panchnama of the clothes put on by the deceased. In view of the overwhelming evidence against the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has conclusively established the guilt of the accused and since the entire link CR.A/106519/1997 9/11 JUDGMENT connecting the appellant is established by the prosecution by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, the appeal preferred by the appellant does not call for any interference and it is liable to be dismissed and the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge requires to be upheld. 11. This Court has heard learned Advocate Mr. Chirag Pawar for the State and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Darshana Pandit for the respondent-State at length and in great detail. This Court has also undertaken a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case as well as the entire evidence on record with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case. 12. I have considered the deposition adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence on which heavy reliance is placed by the prosecution. PW-1 Dr. Kananabala Saryuprasad is examined at Exh. 7. She was working in the Primary Health Centre at Village: Vejalpur on 13- 01-1997. On receiving the information from the Police Constable of Vejalpur, she visited the place known as Village: Mavdi. On reaching the place of the incident, the dead body was extricated from the pit in her presence and the injuries sustained by the deceased were recorded by Dr. Kananabala. She had also identified the muddamal stick during the course of the deposition as well as the clothes put on by the deceased. The deposition adduced by Dr. Kananabala is supported by PM report which is produced vide Exh. 8 to the compilation. On perusal of the PM report, the injury sustained by the deceased has been elaborately narrated. Cause of the death is also mentioned in Column No. 23 as “Neurohaemorragic shock” due CR.A/106519/1997 10/11 JUDGMENT to the injury over back leading to the death. The deposition adduced by PW-2 Ratansing Kalubhai at Exh. 10, PW-3 Chandrasing Parvansinh at Exh. 12, PW-4 Ramsinh Kalubhai at Exh. 15, PW-5 Mahipatsinh Kalusinh at Exh. 16, PW-6 Dolatsinh Bhupatsinh at Exh. 18, PW-7 – Meenaben Arjunsinh vide Exh. 28, PW-8 - Mohanbhai Motibhai Mavi vide Exh. 29 further supports the prosecution story about the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offences. On perusal of the deposition, it becomes clear that the appellant had quarrel with the deceased Railiben on 13-01-1997 during the Navratri festival and during the quarrel he got infuriated and gave the stick-blows on the abdomen of the deceased and private part of the deceased which ultimately resulted in her death. The oral deposition adduced by the prosecution gets necessary support from the complaint produced at Exh. 11, inquest panchnama at Exh. 20, panchnama of the place of the incident at Exh. 22, panchnama of the clothes put on by the deceased at Exh. 24, discovery panchnama at Exh. 17, etc. so as to indicate the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. In view of the overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution, the prosecution, in our view, has established that the appellant was involved in the the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant committed murder of his wife Railiben on flimsy grounds and after committing murder, with a view to dispose of the dead body, placed the dead body in the pit in the house. As the prosecution has established the entire link connecting the appellant with the commission of offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code in a most cogent, convincing and conclusive manner, the appeal in our considered view does not call for any interference and it is CR.A/106519/1997 11/11 JUDGMENT liable to be dismissed. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal preferred by the appellant is dismissed and we hereby confirm the judgment and order of conviction dated 29th August, 1997 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Sessions Case No. 56 of 1997, by which the learned Judge has imposed sentence of RI for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default RI for 3 months under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentence of RI for 1 year, in default RI for 3 months, under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. As the appellant-accused is already undergoing the sentence in prison, he will continue to do so for the remaining part of sentence. However, he will be entitled to get set off, if any, as per the provisions of law. Muddamal be destroyed in terms of the order passed by the learned Judge after the appeal period is over. [C. K. BUCH, J.] [H. B. ANTANI, J.] /shamnath