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

2001 Supreme(Guj) 433

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.K.Abichandani, SHARAD D.DAVE
Chandrasinh - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 652 of 1990
Decided On : 07/06/2001

Advocates Appeared: K.B.ANANDJIVALA, S.N.SHELAT, Sudhanshu Patel

Headnote:(a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) —Sec. 374 —Appeal —Conviction of A-2 under Sec. 302 IPC and acquittal of other accused persons under Sec. 302/34, IPC —Held, evidence of eye witness absolutely reliable —Finding of Trial Court regarding absence of common intention, erroneous —Cogent and reliable material showed existence of common intention —Guilt established beyond reasonable doubt —Conviction of A-2 and sentence upheld.

       Ordinarily, there cannot be any direct evidence of the process of formation of common intention. The common intention is to be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case established by the prosecution.

       [Para 33.1]

       (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) —Sec. 378 —Acquittal of A-1, A-3 and A-4 —Offence under Secs. 302 and 323 read with Sec. 34 —Acquittal of A-1 and A-3 challenged —Held, finding of Trial Court erroneous —Evidence of eye witness absolutely reliable —Guilt established beyond reasonable doubt —Cogent and reliable material showing common intention of accused —Accused A-1 and A-3 convicted —Order of acquittal quashed and set aside.

R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise from the judgement and order dated 17th July 1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 56 of 1987, convicting the original accused No. 2 Chandrasinh for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000=00, in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and acquitting the original accused No. 1 Ajitsinh Andubha and the original accused No. 3 Bharatsinh Andubha for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There was Sessions Case No. 73 of 1987, clubbed with Sessions case No. 56 of 1987 in respect of the same incident. The original accused No. 4 - Bakubha @ Ashoksinh Lalubha, who is the brother of the original accused No. 2 - Chandrasinh was also tried and by the same judgement and order, original accused No. 4 Bakubha @ Ashoksinh Lalubha was also acquitted for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 1. 1 criminal Appeal No. 652 of 1990 is preferred by the original accused No. 2 - Chandrasinh against his conviction, while Criminal Appeal No. 790 of 1990 has been preferred by the State Government against the acquittal of the original accused Nos. 1 and 3 of the Sessions Case No. 56 of 1987. The acquittal of the original accused No. 4 - Bakubha @ Ashoksinh Lalubha is not challenged.

( 2 ) THE prosecution version was that a couple of days before the day of incident, there was some quarrel between Sahdevsinh, who was the younger brother of the deceased Gajubha and the original accused No. 4 - Bakubha @ Ashoksinh, who was the younger brother of the original accused No. 2 - Chandrasinh Lalubha. In that quarrel, Sahdevsinh was injured by a spade blow given to him by the original accused No. 4. However, no complaint was filed in respect of that incident. On 14th May 1987 in the morning, while Abhesinh who was also the younger brother of Gajubha, was cleaning the `utara (a place of tethering cattle as per the prosecution witnesses) which was near their house, the accused No. 4 quarrelled with him and the father of the accused No. 4, Andubha caught Abhesinhs hands from the back and the accused No. 4 dealt a knife blow to him for which the FIR exh. 55 was lodged by Abhesinh at Muli police station. The injured Abhesinh was then sent to the Muli Hospital and thereafter taken to Surendranagar Hospital for treatment by his father Manubha. 2. 1 in the same morning, at about 10 oclock, according to the prosecution, the accused Nos. 1 and 3 i. e. Ajitsinh and Bharatsinh, who are real brothers, and are the cousin brothers of the accused No. 2 and the accused No. 4, barged into the house of Gajubha and started beating his mother Mayaba who was dragged out of the house. At that time, Ranubha and his sister Harshaba were present. Harshaba was also given a push. According to the prosecution, these two accused persons Ajitsinh and Bharatsinh assaulted Mayaba also with sticks causing her injuries, in respect of which, she was later on treated and medical certificate was issued. 2. 2 while the accused Nos. 1 and 3 started assaulting Mayaba, Ranubha rushed to their `utara to call his brother Gajubha for help. Gajubha immediately started rushing towards his house which was only 200 feet away from the `utara and when he came near a spot which is described as the rear of the house of Surubha (`surubha Na Ghar Ni Pachhit), and saw his mother being beaten, he shouted at the accused. At that juncture, the accused No. 2 Chandrasinh emerged from the lane adjoining Surubhas house, took out a knife from a maroon coloured sheath and gave two knife blows, one on the chest and the other on the abdomen of Gajubha. On getting the knife blows, Gajubha started running back towards his `utara and at that time, the accused Nos. 1 and 3 who were beating his mother left her and started chasing Gajub










































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