Judgment

BEG, J.:- The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge of Mehsana of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and three months rigorous imprisonment respectively, the sentences running concurrently. The High Court of Gujarat had confirmed the convictions and the sentences awarded. The appellant had obtained special leave to appeal to this Court.

2. The incident giving rise to the appellant s prosecution is said to have occurred on 20th of June, 1968 outside the house of Mathurji, P.W.2, where the deceased Chanduji and Mohtaji, P.W.3 were aid to be sitting at about 6.00 P.M. in the evening Chanduji deceased is said to have gone there to obtain his share of the income of some mangoes sold by Mathurji, P.W.2. The appellant had a grudge against Chanduji, because of its suspicion that chanduji had illicit relations with his niece and had made her pregnant. There had been a quarrel between the two sides which had led to criminal counter cases relating to the same incident.

3. When the appellant saw the deceased sitting with Mathurji on the evening on 20-6-1968, he is said to have rebuked Mathurji for harbouring his enemy. There was an exchange of abuses, which was said to have led to an attack by the appellant on Mathurji, P.W.2, and on Mobtaji, P.W.3, who intervened. They are said to have received some blows with a stick. Thereafter, the appellant is said to have gone back to his house and returned with a dhariya or danti (scythe) and to have given two blows on Chanduji (deceased), one on the head and another on his arm. The deceased fell down and became unconscious. The appellant then left the scene of occurrence. Mathurji and Mohtaji busied themselves with removing Chanduji deceased to a Government Dispensary at Pethapur, 5 miles away. After that they are said to have for Ahmedabad on foot to inform Chanduji s father about the incident. They are said to have reached Ahmedabad, 18 miles away, on 21st June, 1968. Chanduji, who was removed to Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad, died at 10.00 P.M. on 23-6-1968. He is shown to have sustained the following injuries:

(1) A contused wound about 1 1/4" X 1/2" X 1/2" on the left temporal region of the scalp.

(2) A contused wound about 1/2" X 1/2" X 1/3" on the middle and outer side of the left forearm.

Mobtaji had the following injuries:

(1) A contusion over an area about 1" X 1" on the internal side of the right elbow joint.

(2) A contusion over an area about 1-1/2" X 1/2" on the outer side of the left forearm on its upper third.

4. The appellant did not lead any evidence in defence. He, however, denied the prosecution allegations and admitted the filing of a report (Exh.38) to the Sub-Inspector of Pethapur in which he complained that, when he was returning from his fields at about 6-30 P.M. on 20th of June, 1968, he was abused and then attacked with a knife by Mathurji and by Mobtaji, P.W.3, who had a stick. He stated that Chanduji (deceased) had no weapon. He alleged here that Mobtaji had tried to give a blow with a stick, which he warded off with his Danti, as a result of which the handle of the Danti broke. Thus, he admitted that he had a danti. This report said that Mobta struk him on the right leg so that he fell down, and, therefore after, Mathurji had struck him with a knife on the right side on his body. He stated then that his brother Shambhuji and his nephew Hemaji came to his rescue. The reason for the quarrel given by him in this report was that Manek Bai, the daugher of Shambhu, had become pregnant and that Chanduji (deceased) was "involved" in this affair so that he had to leave the village but had come back. He also admitted that his brother Shambhu had lodged a complaint, presumably against Chanduji, for having made his daughter Pregnant. The prosecution had proved this documment, containing previous statements of the accussed, which, incidentally, contained his counter-version of the same incident, to prove the motive and s