SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(SC) 231

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. R. PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.
State of Gujarat, Appellant
Versus
Patel Mohan Mulji and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 1980,
D/- 11-3-1992

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 read with 34 and 325 read with 34 – Offence of murder - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt - Charged - Evidence - According to prosecution these two respondents along with their sister by name who was arrayed as accused No. 3 before trial court, in furtherance of their common intention caused death of deceased who was none other than elder brother of the respondents and also injured P.W. 5, wife of deceased - Occurrence is stated to have occurred at about 8.00 a.m. near a field - It transpires from evidence that there was enmity between deceased and respondent with regard to diversion of water to their field and right of enjoyment over a passage - On day of occurrence, deceased accompanied by his wife PW 5 proceeded to his field riding on a cycle - PW 5 was following her husband walking - After they crossed one field from Village these two respondents and acquitted accused came and attacked P.W. 5 - On seeing P.W. 5 being beaten deceased went to spot to rescue his wife and intervened - At that time second respondent gave a blow with a spear on left leg of deceased - Thereafter, both respondents and acquitted accused beat indiscriminately deceased and caused several injuries on his body - Occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws. 5 and 8 - After respondent had left scene of occurrence along with acquitted accused, P.Ws. 6 and .7 came on being informed by P.W. 8 - Held, accused are none other than brothers and sister of deceased - In spite of close relationship and in spite of fact that occurrence had taken place in the broad day light as rightly pointed out by High Court, entire case of prosecution suffers from many infirmities which compel this Court to affirm judgment of High Court - P.W. 5 states that she was assaulted by second respondent with a sharp edged pointed weapon on her leg but Court do not find any corresponding injury on her person - P.W. 5 has not mentioned names of assailants either to P.W. 3 or to Police or to any other person till 4-30 p.m. surprisingly inquest took place at about 2-15 p.m even before registration of case - On both grounds High Court rejected testimony of P.W. 8 – Court are in full agreement with reasons given by High Court for discarding testimony of P.W. 8 - It may be also pointed out here that medical evidence as rightly held by High Court is irreconcilably in conflict with oral evidence given by P.Ws. 5 and 8 - Thus it is seen that there are many infirmities surrounding prosecution case - Under these circumstances, Court do not like to interfere with order of acquittal passed by High Court and in fact that judgment of High Court does not suffer from any manifest illegality or perversity- In result, appeal is dismissed - Bail bonds are discharged - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

JUDGMENT:- This appeal is preferred by the State of Gujarat feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 26th November, 1979 made in Criminal Appeal No. 1168/78 whereby the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court convicting the two respondents herein under Section 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and S. 325 read with 5. 34, I.P.C., and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and for a period of two years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers. According to the prosecution these two respondents along with their sister by name Puribai who was arrayed as accused No. 3 before the trial court, in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of the deceased who was none other than the elder brother of the respondents and also injured P.W. 5, the wife of the deceased. The occurrence is stated to have occurred on 4-11-1977 at about 8.00 a.m. near a field.

2. It transpires from the evidence that there was enmity between the deceased and the respondent with regard to the diversion of water to their field and right of enjoyment over a passage. On the day of occurrence, the deceased accompanied by his wife PW 5 proceeded to his field riding on a cycle. PW 5 was following her husband walking. After they crossed one field from the Village these two respondents and the acquitted accused Puribai came and attacked P.W. 5. The second respondent herein, namely, Patel Govind was armed with a spear and the first respondent, Mohan Mulji, and the acquitted accused were each armed with the stick. It is said that P.W. 5, the second respondent, gave a blow with spear on the leg of P.W. 5 and thereafter all of them beat P.W. 5 with sticks. On seeing P.W. 5 being beaten the deceased went to the spot to rescue his wife and intervened. At that time the second respondent gave a blow with a spear on the left leg of the deceased. Thereafter, both the respondents and the acquitted accused beat indiscriminately the deceased and caused several injuries on his body. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws. 5 and 8. After the respondent had left the scene of occurrence along with the acquitted accused, P.Ws. 6 and .7 came on being informed by P.W. 8. The injured persons were removed to the local dispensary. P.W. 3 examined the deceased and found on his person six incised injuries, fracture of both bones of the right forearm and swelling on the left hand (vide wound certificate Ex. 19). P.W. 3 then examined the injured P.W. 5 and found on her person three contusions and a swelling as recorded in the wound certificate Ex. 20. P.W. 3 sent information for recording a dying declaration of the deceased as his condition was very serious. But even before his dying declaration was recorded by any Officer, P.W. 3 sent the injured persons to Junagadh City Hospital for further treatment. But unfortunately on the way to the Hospital the deceased expired. However, at the Hospital, the Police on information came to the Hospital and conducted the inquest over the dead body at about 2.15 p.m. After the inquest was over a statement was recorded from P.W. 5 at about 5.00 p.m. which statement is the basis for recording the first information report in this case. Then a case was registered and the investigation proceeded. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation laid the charge sheet against the three accused inclusive of these two respondents. The trial Court found these two respondents guilty as aforementioned but found the third accused Puribai not guilty and acquitted her by giving the benefit of doubt. These two convicted respondents preferred an appeal before the High Court which for reasons mentioned in the impugned judgment acquitted these two respondents. Hence this appeal by the State. At this stage it was brought to our notice that the second respondent, namely, Govind Mulji, had expired on 27-7-1983. Learned counsel has shown a copy of a death certificate




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top