CR.A/871/1995 1/14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 871 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DN PATEL ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= THAKORE SHIVAJI PUNJAJI - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PRAKASH K JANI for Appellant(s) : 1, MS. DS PANDIT, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DN PATEL Date : 21/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DN PATEL) CR.A/871/1995 2/14 JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1995 on 16th August, 1995, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., and is sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant is sentenced to further six months' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has also been convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. and is sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to further three months' rigorous imprisonment. Sentence in both the offence was ordered to run concurrently. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, during night hours between 9th and 10th November, 1994, Ramtuji Chudaji Thakor was murdered by the present appellant-accused and Thakor Kantiji Senghaji [who has been acquitted by the trial court]. It is the case of the prosecution that as per the prosecution witnesses, the present appellant and the deceased Ramtuji were in company of each other and thus, the whole case is based upon the principle of “last seen together”. It is also the case of the prosecution that there is recovery of weapon which links the present appellant-accused with the offence as per the panchnama at Exh.36. There is also recovery of shirt of the deceased at the behest of the present appellant-accused as per the panchnama Exh.28. These were circumstances present against the present appellant and therefore, charge sheet was filed and Sessions Case No. 57 of 1995 was registered and after recording evidence, the present appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., for committing murder of Ramtuji and CR.A/871/1995 3/14 JUDGMENT against this judgment and order awarding sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who has vehemently submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant; that there is no eye witness of the incident; that in the information given by P.W.1-Gopalji Chudaji Thakor, which is given exhibit no. 9 and which is earlier in point of time, nowhere reveals the fact that the present appellant had gone at the residence of the deceased and that they were in the company of each other. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as per the evidence of P.W.2-Patel Lalbhai Shankerdas, who is examined at Exh.10, he has stated that there were 2 to 3 other persons with the deceased. This witness has also not given name of the appellant. It is also submitted that there is joint recovery panchnama of the weapons as alleged by the prosecution by panchnama at Exh.36. This joint recovery of the weapons is not leading to any conclusive evidence about the involvement of the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Hafeez Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 367 and has pointed out that accused no.2 has already been acquitted by the trial court and looking to the overall evidence of the prosecution witnesses, guilt of the present appellant is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and that other witnesses of the prosecution, especially P.W. 3, P.W.4, P.W.9 and P.W.10 have not supported the prosecution case. Thus, the only circumstance, at the most, which is against the present appellant- accused is recovery of shirt of the deceased as per panchnama Exh. 27 which is proved by prosecution witness, being PW 14-Babuji CR.A/871/1995 4/14 JUDGMENT Chudaji who was examined at Exh. 26. It is submitted that this only piece of evidence cannot be termed as completion of chain of circumstances against the appellant-accused, nor any motive is proved by the prosecution against the appellant-accused for committing murder of the deceased. Learned counsel has therefore submitted that this aspect has not been appreciated by the learned trial court and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in support of his arguments:- [1] Mohd. Abdul Hafeez Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 367. [2] Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. The State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1978 Surpeme Court 424. [3] State of U.P. Vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2045. [4] Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1387. 5. Ms. D.S. Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that there is enough cogent and convincing evidence against the present appellant, especially by P.W.1 and P.W.2 who had seen the appellant-accused with the deceased on 9th November, 1994. Thus, the case is based upon the principle of “last seen together” and the appellant-accused has failed to give any explanation as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as to where the deceased had gone thereafter. It is also submitted by the learned APP that it was the present CR.A/871/1995 5/14 JUDGMENT appellant-accused who had shown the place of scene of offence and at the behest of the present appellant, weapons which were used for committing murder of the deceased were recovered. It is submitted that panchnamas at Exh.28 and 36 have been proved by P.W. 14 and P.W.18 who were examined at Exh.26 and Exh.35 respectively. That these evidences also link the present appellant with the offence. In view of the cumulative effect of these evidences and also looking to the medical evidence of P.W.15 Dr. Harshadkumar N. Patel, who is examined at Exh.30, no error has been committed by the trial court in appreciating these evidences and in convicting the present appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. It is submitted that the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution against the appellant. Learned APP has also pointed from the evidence of PW 15 [Exh.30] that as per the opinion of the doctor-P.W. 15, death had taken place approximately between 10 to 12 days prior to the postmortem. Postmortem was carried out on 19th November, 1994 and therefore, this also tallies with the case of the prosecution that between the night of 9th and 10th November, 1994, offence had taken place. As per P.W.1 and P.W.2, present appellant was found in the company of the deceased on 9th November, 1994 at night hours. In view of these facts, it is submitted by the learned APP that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge may not be altered by this Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Looking to the evidence recorded by the learned trial court, it appears that P.W.1 Gopalji Chudaji Thakor, who was examined at Exh. 8 and who is brother of the deceased, had given information on 18th November, 1994 to the Kalol Taluka Police Station stating that one CR.A/871/1995 6/14 JUDGMENT dead body has been found and is lying at the outskirts of village Sherisa and Bhalthan and that his brother was missing since last 10 days and therefore, investigation may be carried out. This document, which is at Exh.9, never revealed a fact that the present appellant had called the deceased on 9th November, 1994. Thus, Exh.9 does not reveal the name of the appellant. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court. There is no allegation against the present appellant-accused by P.W.1 as per Exh.9 which is first in point of time. Exh. 9 is dated 18th November, 1994 recorded at 12.00 noon. It is also clear from this document Exh.9 that as per P.W.1, deceased had left the house without informing anybody. Thus, it is not the case of P.W.1 as per Exh.9 that on 18th November, 1994 his brother-deceased was called by the present appellant and they had gone together. Looking to the deposition given by P.W.1 at Exh.8, there is material improvement about involvement of the appellant-accused and therefore, it tentamounts to contradiction as per the Explanation to sub-section [2] of Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure. This aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the trial court. 7. FIR registered at Kalol Taluka Police Station bearing CR No. I / 354/94 was registered on 18th November, 1994 after 7 hours of Exh. 9. Thus, FIR was registered on 18th November, 1994 at 19.00 hrs. FIR has not been given exhibit number by the trial court and has been treated as statement under Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Even the FIR is also based upon the information given by other witnesses and by one Ramaji who is not examined as prosecution witness by the prosecution. 8. Looking to the deposition of P.W.1-Gopalji Chudaji, it has been stated by him that P.W.10 Bhikhaji Galaji had informed him that CR.A/871/1995 7/14 JUDGMENT on the night of the New Year Day [Gujarati], there was some dispute or hot altercation between the deceased and the appellant. But looking to the deposition of P.W.10, he has not supported the case of the prosecution that both were fighting on New Year day. Thus, deposition of PW 1 is full of improvements and contradictions and is not supported by other witnesses. 9. Looking to the deposition of P.W.2-Lalbhai Shankerdas, who has been examined at Exh.10, it has been stated by him that between 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. on 9th November, 1994, the deceased had met him and had told him that he is not going to return at his home and this message was to be given by P.W.2 to the family members of the deceased. It is also stated by him in his deposition that there were other 2 to 3 persons. Looking to the deposition of this witness, it cannot be said that the appellant was in the company of the deceased. Who were those 2 to 3 persons is not proved by the prosecution. Thus, “last seen together” circumstance is not established by this witness. 10.Looking to the deposition of P.W.3- Kalaji Maganji Thakor, who is examined at Exh. 11, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Likewise, P.W.4-Thakor Gandaji Shivaji, who is examined at Exh.12, he has also not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.5 Prahladji Suraji and P.W.6 Danaji Maganji are examined at Exh. 13 and Exh.14 respectively for name which was on right hand of the deceased. These are the witnesses for identification of dead body. P.W.7-Thakor Ambaram Bapuji who is examined at Exh.15 had identified the dead body of the deceased. So far as P.W.8-Thakor Chudaji Bhikhaji, who is examined at Exh. 16 is concerned, it has been stated by him that at 7.00 p.m. on 9th November, 1994, the appellant-accused had come at his residence and the deceased had gone in the company of the CR.A/871/1995 8/14 JUDGMENT appellant-accused. Looking to the deposition of this witness, it cannot be said that circumstance of “last seen together” has been proved by this witness. As stated herein above, P.W. 2 Lalbhai Shankerdas [Exh.10] has stated that he had seen the deceased in the company of 2 to 3 other persons at about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m on the same day. Therefore, by the deposition of P.W.8, circumstance of last seen together cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt linking the appellant with the offence. This aspect of the matter also has not been appreciated by the trial court. P.W.9 Galaji Chhaganji and P.W.10 Bhikhaji Galaji have not supported the case of the prosecution and they were examined for proving motive, but the motive has not been proved by the prosecution. 11. Looking to the deposition of P.W.15 Dr.Harshadkumar Naranbhai Patel who is examined at Exh.30, this witness had carried out postmortem of the deceased. It has been stated by him in his deposition that there was stab injury on the chest of the deceased, which had resulted into death of the deceased. Over and above, there was a compound fracture on left thumb of the deceased. It has been stated by this witness that it is not possible for him to give opinion as to whether injury was caused by muddamal article 10-knife. Injuries were ante mortem and death was homicidal death. 12.Looking to the deposition of P.W.18 Chudaji Chunthaji Thakor, who is examined at Exh. 35 and who is a panch witness, he has stated that both the accused including the present appellant and one who is already acquitted by the trial court had shown the place of scene of offence and weapons were recovered. He has proved the panchnama of recovery of weapons at Exh.36. Looking to this document, it is a joint recovery panchnama. Both the CR.A/871/1995 9/14 JUDGMENT accused had shown the place of scene of offence together. Both had alighted from the police vehicle and both the accused had gone at the place of scene of offence and, therefore, it is very difficult to connect only the present appellant accused with the recovery of weapons used for causing murder of the deceased and for disposing of the dead body. Another accused has already been acquitted by the trial court. There is no acquittal appeal by the State. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in para-5 in the judgment in the case of Mohd.Abdul Hafeez Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 367 as under:- “The next piece of evidence against the appellant is that he along with accused 2 and 3 gave information to the investigating officer that the ring MO. 1 was sold to jeweller PW. 3 Pandurangam Kondiah. Now, who gave this information leading to the recovery of this ring MO. 1 left us guessing. In examination-in-chief PW. 3 Panduraugam K. Kondiah stated that his jewellery shop is near Gulzar House, that in the course of his business he buys and sells ornaments and jewels. He deposed that on December 9, 1978. Accused 1 to accused 4 whom he identified in the Court, came to his shop and sold ring MO. 1 to him for Rs. 325/-. He further stated that on Dec. 27, 1978, a Sub-Inspector of Police and some constables accompanied by accused 1 to 3 came to his shop and accused 1 to 3 asked him to produce MO. 1 ring which they had sold to him. He stated that he took out MO. 1 ring from the show case and placed it on the box and the same was attached by the Sub-Inspector of Police under Ext. P/2. Does this evidence make any sense? He says that accused 1 to 4 sold him the ring. He does not say who had the ring and to whom he paid the money. Similarly, he stated that accused 1 to 3 asked him to produce the ring. It is impossible to believe that all spoke simultaneously. This way of recording evidence is most unsatisfactory and we record our disapproval of the same. If evidence otherwise confessional in character is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is obligatory upon the Investigating Officer to state and record who gave the information; when he is dealing with more than one accused, what words were used by him so that a recovery CR.A/871/1995 10/14 JUDGMENT pursuant to the information received may be connected to the person giving the information so as to provide incriminating evidence against the person. The evidence of Pandurangam, therefore, hardly provides any incriminating evidence, against the present appellant. And this jeweller does not enquire how four persons unconnected with each other came together to sell one ring and that did not arouse any suspicion in him. The jeweller is undoubtedly a purchaser of stolen property. His evidence itself would require some corroboration (in?) the circumstances of this case and none is forthcoming.” [emphasis supplied] In view of the aforesaid decision, the document at Exh.36 is not linking the appellant accused with the offence beyond reasonable doubt. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court and therefore also, the judgment and order of conviction deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 14 Babuji Chudaji, who is examined at Exh. 26 and who is panch witness, he has proved the panchnama of recovery of shirt of the deceased at Exh.27. Even if the case of the prosecution is taken at its high pitch, then, only circumstantial evidence against the present appellant is proved by the prosecution, which is not sufficient for convicting the appellant accused for offence of committing murder of the deceased, keeping in mind the cumulative effect of the depositions of the rest of the witnesses and the documentary evidences right from Exh.9 onwards. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial court and therefore also, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14.It ought to be kept in mind when the whole case is based upon circumstantial evidence that chain of circumstances ought to be so completed that it leads to one and only one conclusion that the accused has committed murder of the deceased and all the CR.A/871/1995 11/14 JUDGMENT circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Looking to the evidence on record, P.W.1 who is brother of the deceased has never informed the police on 18th November, 1994 at about 12.00 hrs [looking to Exh.9], the name of the appellant and role played by appellant was never stated by this witness in Exh.9 document. On the contrary, it was stated that the deceased had left the house voluntarily. P.W. 8 [Exh.16] has stated that at about 7.00 p.m. on 9th November, 1994, appellant had come at the house of the deceased and thereafter they had gone together. But this is also no evidence of last seen together, because, looking to the deposition of P.W.2 [exh.10], deceased was seen in the company of 2 to 3 other persons at about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m on 9th November, 1994. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the trial court. On the contrary, there is a presumption on the part of the trial court, especially in para-16 of the judgment that the appellant must be one of these 2 to 3 persons. There is no evidence on record, especially by P.W.2 that the appellant accused was in the company of the deceased, nor the prosecution has asked this witness P.W.2 to identify the accused in the Court. Thus, the prosecution has not asked this witness as to whether those 2 to 3 persons included the appellant accused or not and therefore, the presumption stated in para-16 of the judgment is de hors evidence. 15.It has also not been appreciated by the trial court that there was joint recovery of weapons as per panchnama exh.36. Likewise, there are no blood stains in the field of castor oil seeds, where the whole incident has taken place as per the case of the prosecution. If the murder had taken place at this place and if there was any incise wound on the chest, there ought to have been blood stains at this place. It is the case of the prosecution through prosecution CR.A/871/1995 12/14 JUDGMENT witness 3 Kalaji [Exh.11] that in the field, where castor oil seeds' crop was there, whole offence had taken place. If the castor oil seeds' crop was there, blood stains ought to have been there, but there are no blood stains seen as per the panchnama. Likewise, there are no blood stains on the clothes of the accused. Likewise, there is no panchnama of paddy crop field where the dead body of the deceased was kept for a day as per the P.W.3 who is examined at Exh.11. Exh.9 is not revealing the name of the appellant. The said Exh. 9 was registered first in point of time on 18th November, 1994 at 12.00 noon and which was given by P.W.1. Cumulative effect of all these factors has not been properly appreciated by the trial court and the only circumstance of recovery of blood stained shirt of the deceased at the behest of the appellant accused as per the panchnama Exh.27 proved by P.W.4 [Exh.26] cannot be said as completion of chain of circumstances against the appellant accused. 16.It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naik v . State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1387, in para-11 as under:- “The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now well established by a series of decisions of this Court. According to that standard the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and when all the circumstances CR.A/871/1995 13/14 JUDGMENT cumulatively taken together should lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime. To quote a few decisions of this Court in this regard a reference may be readily made to the case of Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 and Dhananjay Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1994) I JT (SC) 33.” Looking to the aforesaid judgment, chain of circumstances ought to be proved by the prosecution so as to lead to one and only one conclusion that the appellant has committed murder of the deceased. Looking to the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant accused by proving chain of circumstances. 17. It is also held by the Supreme Court in the case of Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. The State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1978 SC 424 in para-7 as under:- “It is well established that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution, must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably