Back
1993 Supreme(Guj) 44
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.N.Bhatt
STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant
Versus
FRANSIS DANIAL PARMAR - Respondent
FRANSIS DANIAL PARMAR557 of 1988
Decided On : 02/08/1993
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Evidence-Relative witnesses-No ground to discard their testimony- Anxiety should be to consider reliability and not relationship-Relationship would inspire confidence that they would not let off real offender.
It is submitted that the three witnesses who have supported the case of the injured-Bai Meena, are relative and, therefore, their evidence should not be believed. This submission cannot be accepted. The court s main anxiety should be to consider the reliability and not the relationship. Again, it may be noted that the relatives will not be interested to let off the real offender. Moreover, the incident occured inside the house and it is in evidence that no outsider was present or any independent person was available in the house who could have deposed. The four persons who were in the house, including the injured, have supported the case of the injured. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the evidence of the relatives should not be accepted.
Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points:
- Case Details: The case involves the State of Gujarat (Appellant) versus Francis Danial Parmar (Respondent), decided by the Gujarat High Court on 02/08/1993. It is an acquittal appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding offences under Sections 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. (!)
- Facts of the Incident: On 19.12.1983, the accused entered the house of the complainant, Bai Meena, with the intention of taking her away. When she refused, he inflicted two knife blows on her abdomen. Three witnesses were present in the house during the incident. (!) (!)
- Injuries and Medical Evidence: The complainant sustained grievous injuries requiring a laparotomy operation. Medical records and certificates produced by Dr. Yogesh Lakhmani corroborate the version given by the injured complainant regarding the knife attack. (!) (!) (!)
- Defense Arguments: The accused claimed he was in love with the complainant and that the incident was a scuffle resulting from opposition by her grandfather and grandmother to their relationship. He also argued that the prosecution witnesses were relatives and their evidence should be discarded. (!) (!) (!)
- Court's Analysis on Witnesses: The High Court rejected the argument that evidence of relatives should be discarded, stating that the court's main anxiety should be reliability, not relationship. The court noted that relatives would not want to let off a real offender and that no independent outsider was present at the scene. (!) (!)
- Corroboration: The evidence of the injured complainant (P.W. 1) was found clear, consistent, and unshaken. It was fully corroborated by three eye-witnesses (P.W. 2, P.W. 3, and P.W. 6) and supported by medical evidence. Minor contradictions in the evidence were deemed insignificant. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Legal Provisions: The court analyzed Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) and 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt/assault) of the Indian Penal Code, finding that the accused's intention was to wrongfully restrain the complainant. (!) (!) (!)
- Judgment: The High Court held the trial court's acquittal to be unjust, unreasonable, and perverse. The acquittal was quashed, and the accused was held guilty of offences under Sections 324 and 452 IPC. (!) (!) (!)
- Sentencing: Since the accused was not present during the initial acquittal appeal, the matter was adjourned for sentencing. Upon hearing both sides, the court awarded a fine of Rs. 1000 for the offence under Section 324, with one month of simple imprisonment in default of payment. No separate sentence was awarded for Section 452. (!) (!) (!)
( 1 ) RESPONDENT-ACCUSED came to be acquitted from the charge under sections 452 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code on 31. 12. 1984 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Nadiad in Criminal Case No. 742 of 1983. Therefore the appellant-State has questioned the legality and validity of the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Magistrate by invoking the aids of the provisions of section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 for short ).
( 2 ) INITIALLY the relevant factual matrix may shortly be stated so as to appreciate the merits of this appeal and challenge against it. Respondents herein is the original accused who is hereinafter referred to as the accused for the sake of convenience was charged by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nadiad in the trial court for the of fence punishable under sections 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code In that the prosecution alleged that the accused on 19. 12. 1983 at 8 30 P. M. illegally committed trespass in the house of the complainant-Bai Meena with an intention to commit an offence and inflict knife blows on the abdomen of Bai Meena. He had also caused injury to the Prosecution witnesses-Bhikhabhai who tried to intervence and save Bai Meena from the attack. There were four persons in the house at the time when the incident occured. Thus three eye witnesses witnessed the attack by the accused on Bai Meena with knife. The accused after entering into the house of the complainant Bai Meena insisted her to accompany him and go out. Thus the accused forcibly wanted to lake away Bai Meena which was resisted by Bai Meena and it resulted into an attack on her.
( 3 ) AFTER infliction of knife blows the complainant Bai Meena was taken to Mahagujarat Hospital at Nadiad from village Uttarsanda which is about 8 to 10 kms. from Nadiad. The incident occured at about 8. 30 P. M. on 19. 12. 1983 and she was taken to the said hospital at Nadiad whore she was questioned by the doctor and she was treated at 9. 45 P. M. on the same day.
( 4 ) ON hospitalisation the injured Bai Meena was required to be operated and leprotomy operation was carried out She remained in the hospital from 19. 12 to 5. 1 1984 She sustained grievous abdomen injuries on account of two knife blows given by the accused as per the prosecution case. The complaint was recorded as narrated by the complainant which is produced at Ex. 10 According to the prosecution case the complaint was recorded immediately after the injured was admitted in the hospital.
( 5 ) THE accused was arrested on completion of the investigation the accused was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences to which he denied and claimed to be tried
( 6 ) ACCORDING to the defence of the accused he was in deep love with Bai Meena who had invited him to lake her from the place of her grand-father at Uttarsanda Pursuant to the letter written by her to him he had gone to the house of her grand-father at Uttarsanda. It is his further defence that the grand-father and grand-father of the complainant did not approve the relationship and cordiality between them. Therefore they and other two persons stated beating him and in the course of the scuffle Bai Meena was injured.
( 7 ) UPON appreciation and analysis of the evidence the trial court reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt and upholding the defence of the accused the trial court acquittal the accused from the charges under Sections 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code Hence this acquittal appeal under section 378 of the Code at the instance of the State. ]
( 8 ) HAVING examined dispassionately the entire evidence on record and after hearing the learned A. P. P. Mr. Shelat and the learned counsel for the accused Mr. Farooqui this court is of the clear opinion that the impugned order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Magistrate is not only unjust and unreasonable but is also perverse.
