IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because the prosecution has failed to examine so-called independent witnesses to the murder or incident would be no ground for discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who may be either the injured or relative of the deceased accompanying the deceased.

Headnote:(i) Evidence Act, 1872 Section 3- Murder trial- Injured eye- witnesses-Criteria for appreciating the evidence of.
       (ii) Evidence Act, 1872- Section 3- Murder trial - Merely because the prosecution has failed to examine independent witnesses to the incident would be no ground for discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who may be either the injured or relative of the deceased accompanying him- (Appabhai's case: A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 696 : relied on). (Paras 17 & 18)
       (iii) Evidence Act, 1872- Section 3Appreciation of evidence- To discard the evidence of the witness on the ground that he has not reacted in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. (Rana Pratap's case: A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 680 relied on). (Paras 25 & 26)
       (iv) Evidence Act, 1872- Section 3- Appreciation of evidence- Chance witness Murder trial- By describing the eye witness as chance witness; it cannot be implied thereby that their evidence is suspicious. (Rana Pratap's case: A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 680). (Para 26)
       (v) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 148 and 149- Prosecution for the offences under- Acquittal- Appeal against- Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was unlawful assembly of 40 to 50 members- Evidence of injured witnesses and eye witness implicating accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, to & 13- Different versions give1 by different witnesses with regard to the words uttered by the members of the unlawful assembly while inflicting injuries- It would not be reasonable to infer that the common object of the assembly was to kill members of the community- Accused would be liables to be punished for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 Sentence of 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- Accused convicted under Section 324 are ordered to undergo R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- For conviction under, Section 324/149, accused are ordered to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- - For the offence under Section 326, accused are to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.3,000/-. (Para 35)
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

M. B. Shah, J.- Against the acquittal order dated 6th March 1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, in Sessions Case No. 114/81, the State has filed this appeal.

2. At the time of admission of this appeal the Court admitted the appeal only against accused Nos. 1,2,5, 7, 9, 10 & 13. Against rest of the accused the appeal was dismissed.

3. In all 15 persons of Bharwad community were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. It is the prosecution version that on 2nd June 1981 at about 6 p.m. the accsued with other members of the Bharwad community formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murders and cause grievous hurt or hurt to the members of Patel community and of committing riots in Bavla town, Taluka Dholka, District Ahmedabad. They were armed with deadly weapons like sticks, dharias and falsi, etc. They came out from the Bharwad locality (Bharwad Vas), went towards the north, i.e. the bazar shouting to beat and kill Patels at sight. It is the prosecution version that in December 1980 election of the Balva Nagar Panchayat was mainly contested by the members of Bharwad community and Patel community. Only 2 members of Bharwad community got elected and the members of the Patel community were elected on remaining seats. Because of this, the relations between these communities were bitter.

4. It is the prosecution version that in succession the members of unlawful assembly attacked 3 persons:

Frist attack was on Patel Govindbhai Girdharbhai. He was attacked along with other members by accused No.1 with ironshod stick, by accused No.2 by dharia and accused Nos. 5 and 10 by sticks. Because of injuries Patel Govindbhai expired on 3rd June 1981, i.e. on the next day.

Thereafter members of the unlawful assembly attacked witness Arvind Kumar Kanjibhai. He was attacked by accused Nos. 5, 7, 9, 10 & 13. It is the say of the witness that accused No. 10 inflicted dharia blow while other accused inflicted stick blows. To save his life the witness entered the shop named, "Janta Bidi Stores" owned by witness Bipinbhai Naranbhai.

The said members of the unlawful assembly proceeded further, went at Gayatri Milk, Shop owned by Patal Vinubhai Keshavlal, dragged him out of the shop, caused some damage to the shop and assaulted him. It is the say of this witness that along with other accused he was assaulted by accused Nos. 2, 5, and 13. Accused No.2 gave a dharia blow, accused No. 5 gave a stick blow and accused No. 13 also gave a stick blow.

At 7-30 p.m. the witness Arvindbhai Kanjibhai went at the police station, lodged the First Information Report Ext. 66 against Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and other members of the unlawful assembly. The injured persons were removed to V.S. Hospital. Accused (sic) Patel Govindbhai was examined at V.S. Hospital at 8.05 p.m. by Dr. V.R. Sheth. Patel Arvindbhai was also examined at 9.15 p.m. by Dr. V.R. Sheth. Patel Vinubhai was exanlined at 10.17 p.m. by Dr. K. R. Shukla.

It is the say of the prosecution that P. W. 10 Anarsinh recorded the First Information Report of Arvindbhai at 7.30 p.m. After recording the First Information Report the investigation was handed over to P.S.I. Chauhan. It is the say of P.S.I. Chauhan that en the relevant day en 2-6-81 he had gone to Dholka for Bandobust. At 7.00 p.m. he received a telephonic message from Bavila P.S.O. that there were riots at Bavla. Therefore, he came to Bavla. He took ever investigation from Head Constable Anarsinh. At night time he kept Bhandobust in Bavla town. On 3rd June 1981 he went at the scene of offence where Arvindbhai was injured. Panchnama of the scene of offence was prepared. He recorded the statements of witnesses Naranbhai Atmaram and Bipinbhai Naranbhai. Thereafter he went at the place where the Govindbhai Gordhanbhai was injured, prepared panchnama and recorded statements of the witnesses. Subsequently at on time he went at the V.S. Hos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

IMPORTANT POINT Merely because the prosecution has failed to examine so-called independent witnesses to the murder or incident would be no ground for discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who may be either the injured or relative of the deceased accompanying the deceased.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because the prosecution has failed to examine so-called independent witnesses to the murder or incident would be no ground for discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who may be either the injured or relative of the deceased accompanying the deceased.