2012 Supreme(Guj) 281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.L. Dave & Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria
Lalsinh Deepsinh Zala
Versus
State of Gujarat
Criminal Appeal No. 1655 of 2005—Decided on 11/05/2012

Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case conviction of appellant for offence of murder is sustainable.

Headnote:Head Note :

       [Indian] Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) — Section 302 — Bombay Police Act (Bom. Act No. 22 of 1951) — Murder — Conviction — Appreciation of evidence — Finding of — Sustainability — Upon examination of the evidence on record and assessing it, no doubt remains that the incident and involvement of accused in the crime is fully established — The evidence of Panchnama of place by maker of it coupled with evidence of FSL report which showed the blood group on the clothes of the deceased and the victim to be one which was the blood group of the deceased reinforced the proof of commission of offence — The stains of blood on the crime weapon Dhariya shown to have been recovered by the evidence of I.O. also matched the same blood group as per FSL Report — The closeness of witnesses with the deceased is no ground to reject their evidence — The learned consul for appellant has also raised contention that there is no evidence of intention to cause death — It is held by Apex Court in several cases that intention to kill is not required in every case — A knowledge with the natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. — In the light of evidence on record and position of law the only conclusion is that offence committed by appellant was murder falling within the purview of Section 300 clause fourthly thereof — The conviction and sentence against appellant is confirmed.

       Held :

       Upon examination of the evidence on record and assessing it in the context of the contentions raised by both the sides, it could not be gainsaid that the incident and involvement of the accused in the crime was established. The evidence of panchnama of place proved by the maker of it coupled with the evidence of F.S.L. Report (Exh.52) which showed the blood group on the clothes of the deceased and the victim to be one which was the blood group of the deceased reinforced the proof of commission of offence. The stains of blood on the crime weapon Dhariya shown to have recovered by the evidence of investigating officer (PW-16) also matched the same blood group as per the F.S.L. Report. [Para 5]

       The injuries certified by the medical evidence indicated that the accused had acted forcefully in giving the blows. He gave repetitive blows ferociously. Not only that the act was ferocious and the blows were forceful, evidence Exh.17 indicated that the accused hit first blow of Dhariya which was resisted by the deceased who got injured and fell down on the ground. On the next moment, the accused successfully attempted another blow on the head of the victim with Dhariya which resulted into breaking of head and profuse bleeding. The accused did not stop at that, but attempted third successive blow of Dhariya on the victim. It was a brutality at its peak when the person being assaulted was an old lady and a mother. By all means, the accused has to be posted with knowledge that he was running the risk of causing death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, and for which the accused had no excuse. [Para 5.8]

       It needs no imagination that the accused committing such an act knew that his act was so imminently dangerous which in all probability cause death or would cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The manner in which the attack with Dhariya was made on the deceased, who was an unarmed person and old in age, convincingly suggested that the act was done by the appellant-accused by incurring the risk of causing death or such injury, for which he had no excuse. [Para 5.9]

       In light of evidence on record and position of law discussed above, the only conclusion is that the offence committed by the appellant was murder falling within the purview of Section of 300 and in particular clause ‘Fourthly’ thereof. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order recording conviction against the appellant and sentencing him for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC does not warrant any interference. The conviction and sentence against the appellant for other offences are also confirmed. As directed in the impugned judgment, the sentences shall run concurrently. [Para 6.1]

       Law Laid Down :

       A knowledge with the natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a conviction under Section 302 I.P.C.

       Case Law Analysis :

       Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) AIR SCW 1835 [Para 5.1];; Dalip Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 354 [Para 5.2];; Sone Lal vs. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 760 [Para 5.2];; Arun Nivalaji More vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2006 SC 2886 [Para 5.3];; State of M.P. vs. Ram Prasad, AIR 1968 SC 881 [Para 5.5];; Santosh vs. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 654 [Para 5.6];; Mohinder Pal Joli vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 577 [Para 5.7];; Alister Antony Pereira vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 (2) SCC 648 [Para 5.7];; Kikar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1993 SC 2426 [Para 5.10];; Suresh Chandra vs. State of U.P., 2005 (6) SCC 130 [Para 5.14].—Relied on