Umedbhai Jadavbhat vs State Of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1977 Supreme(SC) 368

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.K. GOSWAMI AND V.D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.
Umedbhai Jadavbhai, Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 1974
Decided on 16-12-1977.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. S. Desai, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. M. V. Goswami, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mrs. G. A. Seth, M. N. Shroff and Miss Radha Rangaswamy Advocates, for Respondent.

Advocates:
G.A.SHELL, M.N.SHROFF, M.V.GOSWAMY, Radha Rangaswamy, V.S.DESAI

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Imprisonment for life – Offence of murder – Injury - Proper appreciation of the evidence - Third injury was on the jugular vein and that was also necessarily fatal, according to the Doctor, He also stated that when the victim was attacked, she could not be standing and was sleeping or was in a reclining position. The Doctor further stated that the first and the seventh injuries were caused when the deceased was offering some resistance and these could be caused while the victim was standing and even after the 2nd and the 3rd injuries. According to the Doctor, even after all these injuries, the deceased could be conscious for about 15 to 20 minutes after she had received these injuries and she might have been able to speak in slow and whispering condition. There was no injury to the vocal chord – Held, It was very strenuously contended by Mr. Desai that if the accused were the author of the injuries, he would not call out for the neighbours to come while his wife was alive, taking a great risk of her implicating him. We have given anxious consideration to this submission, but cannot agree that there was any risk involved in alerting the neighbours at the time chosen by the accused after he has seen the most precarious condition of the deceased. The evidence clearly discloses that there was no speech from the deceased when the neighbours came. She was "groaning" and was "restless" but could not speak. After these severe injuries on the neck already bleeding profusely, the restlessness of the deceased stated by a witness (P.W. 4) and groaning of the deceased deposed to by another witness (P.W. 5) unfold the last stage of the condition of the dying woman before breathing her last. The Doctor (P.W. 11) who came within about an hour of the accused shouting "thieft thief" found the deceased absolutely unconscious and after he had rendered first aid and applied bandage, she died within about ten minutes of his arrival. The evidence of the Doctor who held autopsy of the deceased also runs counter to the submission of Mr. Desai. We are, therefore unable to hold that the accused who knew the actual condition of the deceased at the time of his shouting had any risk on his part to call the neighborus at the time he chose after infliction of the injuries on her. There would be sufficient loss of blood by then from the neck injuries and we have the evidence of the witnesses that she was unable to speak and also died within about an hour of the accused alerting the neighbors - There is, however, no evidence to this effect and nothing has been brought out in the course of cross-examination. On the fateful night the accused was late in coming to his house at 11.00 P.M. from a "Bhujia Party". We do not find anything from the conduct of the accused to hold in his favour. The fact that he shouted "thief thief" is a deliberate false plea in answer to an inevitable charge against him. We agree with the High Court that the plea of the accused about the story of theft is absolutely false - Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

GOSWAMI, J.:—Deceased Minakshi is the wife of the accused Umedbhai Jadavbhai, who is the appellant in this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court. He was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, but on appeal by the State, the High Court convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. for murder of his wife and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Minakshi was a young girl of 20 years and was married to the accused on June 30, 1972. On the very day of marriage, she cames to the house of the accused an returned to her parents house at Umalla after about 5 or 7 days. She was sent back to Panolkampa to the house of the parents-in-law on or about October 14, 1972 From Panolkampa, she came to the house of the accused at Zadeshwar on 19-11-72 and she was to leave for Umalla, her parents place on 21-11-72.

2. On the night between 20th and 21st November, 1972 at about 3.30 A. M., the neighbourhood was alerted by the accused shouting from his Agasi (terrace) "Run, Run, thieves have entered". Immediately Mahalaxmi (P.W. 4) whose house was almost opposite to that of the accused with a path intervening and who was talking in her courtyard to the house of the accused. There was a death in the village and they were awake, Some other neighbours also came including Ishvarbhai Hirabhai (P. W. 6). First Ishvarbhai went to the upper storey of the house of the accused accompanied by two others. He saw the accused and his brother Dinesh standing in the Agasi. When he asked the accused as to what had taken place, he replied thief inside. He also stated that the accused appeared to be nervous. When he went inside, he saw Minakshi lying with injuries between the outer and the inner room. He then shouted to the women to come up and they all saw Minakshi lying injured and restless. He did not ask the accused or Dinesh as to what had taken place. It also does not appear that the accused or Dinesh gave any further information to him about the incident. Harikrishna (P. W. 11) Ayurvedic Doctor, was called by the son of Jesingbhai, husband of Sadaben, and he came to the house of the accused at 4.20 A.M. and found Minakshi absolutely unconscious although bleeding from the injuries. After he rendered first aid, she died within 8 or 10 minutes. The Doctor (P. W. 2), who held autopsy of the dead body of Minakshi on the following morning, found the following injuries:-

"1. An incised wound 2"X 1" wide in middle X muscle deep, at the root of the thumb on the back of the right hand.

2. A vertical incised wound of the size of 1"X 1/2" inside X muscle deep over the upper part of the right side of the neck.

3. A horizontal incised wound on to middle of the left side of the neck, 1 1/2"X 1/4"X muscle deep.

4. A horizontal incised wound on the upper part of the left side of the neck 1"X 2"X1/4"X muscle deep.

5. An oblique incised wound on the upper part of the left side of the neck behind the left ear of the size of 1" X 1/2"X muscle deep.

6. A horizontal incised wound on the root of the left side of the neck of the size of 1/2"X 1/4"X muscle deep.

7. An incised wound of the size of 1"X 1/4"X muscle deep over the left shoulder laterally."

According to the Doctor all these injuries were ante-mortem and the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to the multiple wounds in the neck. When the knife (Article No.8), produced by the accused, was shown to him, he said that the injuries could be caused by such an instrument. There were four injuries on the left side of the neck of the deceased and one was on the right had side of the neck. The right hand side carotid artery (injury No. 2) was cut and according to the Doctor, any cut on the carotid artery was necessarily fatal. The third injury was on the jugular vein and that was also necessarily fatal, according to the Doctor, He also stated that when the victim was attacked, she could not be standing and was sleeping or was in a reclining position. The Doctor further stated that the first and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document