Champaben Govindbhai vs Popatbhai Manilal And Ors

2. The deceased, Arunbhai and Popatbhai Manilal, Jayantibhai Manilal and Ishwarbhai Manilal were 1 residents of Bapalal Ghanchi's Chawl, Chamanpura, Ahmedabad. Champaben Govindbhai Patni, the complainant, the mother of the deceased, was married to Govindbhai, who was at the material time working in Mumbai. They have three sons and three daughters, the deceased Arunbhai, being the eldest of the sons. The deceased, a rickshaw- puller by profession, was married 10 years back to Madhuben. She is the daughter of Chamanbhai Popatbhai, the uncle of the accused persons. But at the time of the incident Madhuben was not staying in the family of the deceased.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.6.1999, around 9.00 p.m., the deceased Arun was sleeping on a cot on the Otla (extended balcony) of the house after his supper. Accused No. 1, Popat was walking past by him when the leg of the deceased, which was dangling from the cot, touched him. At that the Accused no. 1 started abusing the deceased to which he protested and a scuffle ensued and in the process they reached the entrance of the chawl. The complainant, who 2 was inside the house heard the noise and came out to see that the two were quarrelling. So she told her son not to quarrel and took him aside. Accused No. 1 Popat went to his house. After sometime, all the three accused came to the place of occurrence, armed with weapons. Accused No. 1 had a gupti (a long double edged knife) in his hand; Accused No. 2 Jayanti was armed with a pipe while the Accused No. 3 Ishwar was holding a Dhoka (a wooden log, used for cleaning clothes). At that time, the deceased Arun was standing along with his sister Meghna (PW 4) and the Accused No. 1 caught hold of her. The deceased told him to let his sister go as the quarrel was between the two of them. At that point of time, the Accused No.1 hit the deceased with the gupti, first on the chest and then on the stomach. The Accused No. 2 hit the deceased on the chest with the pipe and Accused No. 3 hit him with the dhoka. The deceased thus received several blows all over the body. Vijay Patni (PW 5), the nephew of the complainant who had been living with them at the point of time, came to the scene and tried 3 to intervene but was hit on the head by Accused No. 2. The deceased fell on the ground in front of his house thereupon all the three accused ran away from the place. The deceased was taken to the hospital by Champaben, her husband's sister Dadamben and her nephew, Vijay where he was examined and declared dead. A post-mortem examination was conducted, after which the complainant brought the dead body home. The police came to her house and her complaint was recorded.

5. On 19.6.99, the accused persons were brought to the police station at 1.00 a.m. and their panchnama was made. The blood stained clothes of the Accused No. 2 was also seized and a panchnama was made. Since the police felt that there was enough evidence against them, the three accused were arrested at 2.30 a.m. on 20.6.1999 and were interrogated.

6. The day after their arrest, at the behest of Accused No. 2, the police found the weapons of offence which were hidden in the mailia (loft). The police as well as Accused No. 2 went to their house, broke the lock and recovered a wooden dhoka, an iron pipe and a gupti which were seized 5 and panchnamas prepared. The seized weapons and clothes were sent to the FSL on 22.6.99.

8. The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The contention of the State was that there was enough evidence for conviction of the accused persons and the Trial Court ought to have believed the case of the prosecution on the basis of the evidence of the star witness Champaben which was supported by other two eye-witnesses, namely Vijay (PW 5) and Meghnaben (PW 4). The High Court however dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment dated 18.7.2001.

Fracture of left 4th and 5th sternochondral area of ribs.

21. Therefore considering all these facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is constrained to hold that the High Court did not exercise its jurisdiction properly under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code in appreciating the material on record while approving the order of acquittal of the trial court.

22. Therefore, the High Court's judgment of acquittal cannot be sustained and is set-aside.

23. The High Court will now hear the State's appeal afresh.

24. We expect, having regard to the passage of time, High Court will try its best to dispose of the State's appeal as expeditiously as possible. 17

25. The High Court will not feel bound by any observation made in the judgment. The observations which have been made here are for the purpose of disposing of the present appeal. The High Court is at liberty to apply its mind to the evidence and materials available on record and come to its independent finding. The appeal is, thus, allowed.