CR.A/1187/2007 1/15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1187 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ===================================================================== = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ===================================================== RAJESHBHAI SUKHLAL VASAVA - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ===================================================== Appearance : MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR HL JANI Ld. APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 06/02/2008 CR.A/1187/2007 2/15 JUDGMENT CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED) 1. Appellant – original accused in Sessions Case No.154 of 2006 has filed this Appeal under Section 374 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 24.1.2007 of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara. 2. According to the prosecution case the present appellant – original accused Galiyabhai Rangabhai Alvai, P.W.3, Gangadhar Joitaram Patil (deceased), Parshottambhai Manabhai Rohit, P.W.4 and Police Inspector Sureshkumar Joitaram Patel were associated with the Police Station at Dabhoi and were in patrolling in the night of 4th & 5th November, 2005 at about 23.15 hrs. At about 4.30 hrs. in the early morning of 5th November, 2005 PI Shri SJ Patel dropped himself from the police mobile/van for taking rest. Thereafter Police Personnel Galiabhai Alvai, Gangadhar Patil and Parsottam Manabhai Rohit proceeded in patrolling and when they were proceeding towards Tilakwada Road, Opp. Maharshi Dayanand Society, a person (accused) was noticed having possessed two bags. The police suspected something wrong and, therefore, police personnel Gangadhar Patil had been to that person and his bag was attempted to be searched by him. When the bag was started to be searched by police personnel Gangadhar Patil in presence of police personnel; the appellant – accused took out “Gupti” and CR.A/1187/2007 3/15 JUDGMENT inflicted injuries on the chest of Gangadhar Patil and on receiving such injury he fell down on the earth. The appellant – accused tried to be overpowered by Galiyabhai Rangabhai Alvai, but he could not succeed. Then the Police personnel PM Rohit, who was witnessing the entire incident, got down from the police van and made attempt to rescue Gangadhar Patil. The accused did not spare him also and he also received injuries at the hand of the accused by sharp cutting instrument. Witness Galiyabhai became all alone helpless and, therefore, he has raised alarm to invoke attention of inhabitant of society. Thereafter, the appellant – accused ran way. Both the injured Gangadhar Patil and P.M. Rohit were removed to the Hospital, where Gangadhar Patil was declared as Dead. P.W.4 PM Rohit received serious injuries and, therefore, he was referred to S.S.G. Hospital at Vadodara for further medical treatment. 3. Thereafter, P.W. 3 Galiyabhai Alvai lodged FIR before the police (Exh.14) giving description of the accused as the accused escaped from the place of incident. Regular case came to be registered. The dead body of deceased Gangadhar was sent to the hospital for Post Mortem and opinion about the cause of death. Dr. Vipul Trivedi (P.W.2), has conducted the Post Mortem of the deceased. Dr. Trivedi has conducted the autopsy of dead body and arrived at the CR.A/1187/2007 4/15 JUDGMENT conclusion that the deceased sustained external injury which has penetrated the lungs and heart of deceased as a result of which the deceased has died. Thereafter the Post Mortem Report was submitted. The Doctor gave an opinion that the injury received by the deceased was possible by incriminating weapon like “Gupti”. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that injured witness P.M.Rohit was admitted in S.S.G. Hospital where Dr. Pravinaben Thakker has examined him. He was admitted in the Hospital for a period of 14 days and the report regarding the injuries sustained by PM Rohit was obtained. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that during the said period the present appellant – accused was arrested in a theft case wherein his involvement in the present case was notice by P.I. S.J.Patel. Thereafter identification parade was conducted by Executive Magistrate - P.W. 5 Chaudhary Jivaliyabhai. P.W. 4 P.M.Rohit (injured witness) was called by Executive Magistrate where Shri Rohit identified the accused before the panch witnesses. Thereafter Investigating Officer (P.W.8) further visited the place of incident and collected the incriminating articles and blood stains on mud from the place of incident. During the course of investigation witness Ashaben Murlidhar Chauhan CR.A/1187/2007 5/15 JUDGMENT produced the incriminating Article “Gupti” which was placed under the mattress by the accused. 6. Thereafter Investigating Officer, after having collected the sufficient evidence on record, submitted Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and filed charge-sheet. Thereafter, learned JMFC, Dabhoi committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, Vadodara since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Thereafter the charge was framed against the accused where the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 7. The prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses. The prosecution has examined (i) Dr. Pravinaben Arvindbhai Thakkar – P.W. 1 at Exh.8 who has examined injured Pursottambhai Manabhai Rohit, and issued injury Certificate, which is at Exh.9; (ii) Dr. Vipul Hemantkumar Trivedi – P.W.2 at Exh.10, who has conducted the Post Mortem of deceased Gangadhar Patil and gave P.M. Report which is at Exh.12; (iii) complainant and eye witness Galiyabhai Rangabhai Alvai – P.W. 3 at Exh.13 and the complaint filed by him is at Exh.14; (iv) injured witness Parsottambhai Manabhai Rohit (P.W.4); (v) Executive Magistrate Chaudhary Jivaliyabhai (P.W.5) at Exh.16, who has conducted Test Identification Parade of the accused; (vi) Panch Sajidkhan Anvarkhan Pathan (P.W.6) at Exh.19 – panchnama of place of CR.A/1187/2007 6/15 JUDGMENT incident is at Exh.20; (vii) Panch Ashaben Murlidhar Chaudhary (P.W.7) at Exh.21, who has produced the incriminating Article “Gupti”; and (viii) Investigating Officer Shri Sureshkumar Joitaram Patel (P.W.8) at Exh.22. The prosecution has also relied upon the documentary evidence, viz. (i) Yadi written by P.S.I. addressed to PSO, at Exh.23, (ii) Inquest Panchnama, at Exh.24; (iii) Panchnama of muddamal article, at Exh.25, (iv) Yadi of Muddamal, at Exh.26, (v) FSL Report, at Exh.27 and (vi) DNA Profile Report from FSL, at Exh.28. Thereafter the prosecution has closed its evidence vide purshis at Exh.29 on 12.1.2007. Thereafter, further statement of the accused was recorded u/s.313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused pleaded his innocence and ignorance from the affairs of the case of the prosecution. Then the arguments were heard. After considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has held the accused guilty for the offence punishable u/ss. 302, 307, 333 and 353 I.P. Code and convicted the accused. The accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 I.P. Code and is sentenced to under-go Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default to under-go simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years; for the conviction for offence CR.A/1187/2007 7/15 JUDGMENT punishable u/s. 307 I.P. Code he is sentenced to under-go R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) i/d to under-go simple imprisonment for 6 months, similarly for conviction for the offence punishable u/s. 353 I.P. Code appellant is sentenced to under-go R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) i/d to under-go simple imprisonment for period of 1 month; and for the offence punishable u/s. 333 I.P. Code appellant – accused to under-go R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) i/d to under-go simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month. 8. We have heard learned Advocate Shri S.A. Qureshi, appearing on behalf of the appellant – accused and learned APP Mr. H.L. Jani, appearing on behalf of the respondent – State. We have also gone through the Judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Qureshi has contended that the evidence of P.W. 4 – Parsottam Manabhai Rohit is concocted; the Investigating Officer has concocted the said story against the present appellant; the present appellant was not present at the scene of offence and he has been falsely involved in this case. Mr. Qureshi has also read the oral evidence of P.W. 4 – Parsottam Manabhai Rohit, which is at Exh.15; P.W. 5 – Chaudhary CR.A/1187/2007 8/15 JUDGMENT Jivaliyabhai, Executive Magistrate, which is at Exh. 16; P.W. 7 – Ashaben Murlidhar Chaudhary at Exh.21, who has produced incriminating Article “Gupti”. Mr. Qureshi submitted that the involvement of the appellant – accused in the present offence is doubtful. He submitted that the P.W. 4 has also not identified the appellant – accused. Mr. Qureshi has also submitted that Executive Magistrate has also admitted that no proper steps have been taken not to disclose the identity of the accused persons to the witness before conducting the identification parade. Mr. Qureshi also contended that looking to the time and place of incident the appellant cannot be identified by the present witnesses. He has also contended that the Police Station and the office of J.B.Chaudhary, Executive Magistrate, where the test identification parade was conducted, both are in the same compound and therefore, there was a clear chance for the said witness to identify and verify the accused and the accused was shown by the Police to the said witness. The identification parade has not been carried out as per the norms prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He also contended that the Executive Magistrate has admitted that the dummy persons are not in resemblance and similarity and not similar to the appellant's face. He has also contended that the recovery of Muddamal is not proper and valid. He has also contended that it was the duty of the Executive Magistrate to CR.A/1187/2007 9/15 JUDGMENT verify regarding pre-identification of the accused to the witnesses. The trial Court has not properly applied its mind to the provision of law. So far as Section 300 I.P. Code concerned the reasons given by the trial Court are covered within the meaning of Section 300 I.P. Code. 10.Learned APP Mr. Jani, appearing on behalf of the respondent – State contended that the evidence of injured, who is a star witness, cannot be discarded. He contended that the Test Identification Parade is properly carried out by the learned Executive Magistrate. The appellant – accused was having two bags with him and just to avoid his involvement in the commission of offence he inflicted “Gupti” blow on the deceased on his chest. The chest is a vital part of the body and the Doctor who has made Post Mortem Report has explained sufficiently about the cause of death. Looking to the evidence the prosecution has proved that the Appellant has committed the murder. He has contended that the evidence of the witnesses is sufficient to convict the present appellant. He has already read the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, there is not a single iota of evidence to show that this is a fit case to admit this Appeal. CR.A/1187/2007 10/15 JUDGMENT 11.We have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Qureshi on behalf of the appellant – accused and learned APP Mr. Jani on behalf of the respondent – State. We have also gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence. Dr. Pravinaben Thakkar (P.W.1), who has examined injured Parsottam Manabhai Rohit (P.W.4), has categorically stated that the injury received by P.M.Rohit was possible by sharp edged weapon like “Gupti”. We have also gone through the Post Mortem Report. Dr. Vipul Trivedi (P.W.2), who has conducted the Post Mortem has categorically stated that the injury received by deceased was possible by “Gupti”. We have also gone through the evidence of injured person Parsottam Manabhai Rohit (P.W.4). He has identified the accused and explained the criminal act of the present appellant. The evidence of P.W.3 Galiyabhai Rangabhai Alvai (complainant) and the evidence of P.W. 4 – P.M.Rohit and the complaint Exh. 14 are compared with each other. Panchnama of scene of offence Ex.20 has highlighted that the present incident took place at the said place. We have also gone through the panchnama of muddamal Gupti (Ex.25) and the Inquest Panchnama (Exh.24). All are corroborative piece of evidence produced by the prosecution. 12.Now so far as the question regarding Test Identification Parade is concerned, much is argued by learned Advocate Mr. Qureshi that the CR.A/1187/2007 11/15 JUDGMENT Test Identification Parade is doubtful and the proper care and caution was not taken by the Executive Magistrate who has conducted the T.I. Parade. We have gone through the evidence of Executive Magistrate and we found that the Test Identification Parade has been conducted properly. It is true that the Office of the Executive Magistrate and the Police Station by itself situated in the same compound, but that cannot be said to be a ground to dis-believe that the accused is falsely involved in this case by the witnesses. P.W.4 – witness P.M.Rohit has no personal enmity or bias with the accused to falsely involve the appellant – accused. Mr. Qureshi has contended that the appellant – accused has inflicted only one blow on the deceased and, therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence u/s. 302 I.P. Code. 13.Mr. Qureshi has contended that other eye witnesses were interested witnesses and their evidence can be compared with the evidence of complainant and the injured witness P.M.Rohit. We have gone through the evidence of eye witnesses and the injured witness. We found that all the witnesses have properly explained the whole incident in their evidence and identified the present appellant and they have no personal enmity with the present appellant to falsely involve him. From the evidence it is evident that deceased was assaulted by the accused when CR.A/1187/2007 12/15 JUDGMENT he was conducting search of the bag. The deceased and the P.W.3 and 4 are the police personnel and they were performing their duties and they were supposed to check any person whose activities are found to be doubtful. The witnesses have no intention to falsely involve the present appellant. The appellant has selected vital organ of the person of the deceased as well as of P.W.4 for causing injuries. The chest is the vital part of the body and the injury on the chest is proved fatal. Mr. Qureshi has contended that in the present case looking to the medical evidence the incident has happened all of a sudden and there was only one injury which has resulted into the death of the deceased. There was no premeditation and preparation on the part of the accused to commit such incident and the same has taken place all of a sudden. The accused and the persons were not knowing each other and, therefore, ingredients of Section 302 of I.P. Code cannot be attracted and at the most ingredients of Section 304-II I.P. Code may be attracted in the case of the appellant – accused. It is true that the deceased has received one injury, but, it is also true that the accused has selected vital organ of the body of the deceased as well as of P.W. 4 for causing injuries. It is also evident that the deceased was assaulted by the accused when he was conducting search of the bag. If the accused was CR.A/1187/2007 13/15 JUDGMENT innocent he would have allowed the police personnel to check his bag without any fear. Therefore, the contentions of Mr. Qureshi referred to above are not acceptable. 14.The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in so many cases that if the test identification parade is not carried out by I.O., yet, the evidence of eye witnesses is sufficient to prove the version of prosecution conviction can be based on such evidence. It is true that identification test is not a substantive evidence and it can only be used as a corroborative peace of evidence in Court. Non-holding T.I. Parade is not fatal when the corroborative and conclusive evidence is available before the Court in the case. It is true that there may be minor lapses in conducting T.I. Parade, yet that would not help the accused and test identification parade would not be vitiated. If the claim of the ocular witnesses that they knew the accused when already is found to be true, the failure to hold a test identification parade in proper manner as alleged is immaterial and is of no consequence. In the present case witness himself was injured during the course of occurrence of the incident and, therefore, there can be hardly any doubt regarding his presence at the spot. So, the presence of the injured witness cannot be doubted, so also his version. CR.A/1187/2007 14/15 JUDGMENT 15.We have gone through the whole evidence as well as the submissions made by both the learned advocates. All the eye witnesses have explained properly the whole incident. In the present case the deceased and the complainant and other witnesses are the public servant and they were doing their public duty. The deceased and injured witness P.W. 4 were performing their duties, they were supposed to check any person whose activities are found to be doubtful. The accused was having with him a deadly weapon “Gupti”. When such type of deadly weapon like “Gupti” is used by the appellant – accused just to create hurdles in doing duty by the Police Officer and using such type of deadly weapon on the police personnel restraining the police officer from doing their duty which is proved satisfactorily, then the Court is bound to accept the prosecution evidence. There is no explanation as to why the appellant accused was carrying with him such a deadly weapon “Gupti”. No more arguments are advanced by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. 16.At the hearing of admission of this Appeal we are of the opinion that there is no substance in the Appeal and, therefore, the same is required to be dismissed at the admission stage. We are not discussing the evidence of each witness in detail in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of CR.A/1187/2007 15/15 JUDGMENT Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417, which reads as under: “....This Court has observed in Girija Nadini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhry (1967) 1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.” 17.In view of above discussion this Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage and accordingly it is dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 24.1.2007 rendered in Sessions Case No.154 of 2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara is hereby confirmed. (R.P.DHOLAKIA,J.) (Z.K. SAIYED, J.) sas