Back
Acquits Two Accused in Murder Case Citing
The has acquitted two men convicted of murder, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish which accused delivered the and that the incident amounted to a . A division bench of Justice Gita Gopi and Justice L.S. Pirzada set aside the imposed by the trial court, observing that the case fell under .
The Background: A Quarrel Over Right of Way
The case stemmed from an incident on , in Salal village. Earlier that afternoon, a verbal altercation broke out between the wives of the accused and the complainant’s wife over a right of way. The dispute was reportedly resolved by a family elder, Jagatsinh Punjsinh. However, around 6:30 PM, the complainant’s younger brother, Rajendrasinh, was allegedly assaulted by a group of men armed with a sickle, a sword, and an iron strip. Rajendrasinh succumbed to his injuries seven days later at a hospital in Ahmedabad.
The trial court convicted two of the nine accused—Pravinsinh Vajesinh Parmar and Tejendrasinh Jagatsinh Parmar—under and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The remaining seven accused were acquitted. Both convicted men appealed the verdict.
Arguments Presented
Appellants’ Submissions:
Senior advocates and argued that the was inconsistent with the prosecution’s case. The post-mortem revealed only one head injury, yet the complainant alleged both a sickle and a sword blow to the head. No blood was found on the seized sickle, and the doctor who first treated the deceased opined that the head injury could only have been caused by a sword, not a sickle. The appellants also pointed to unexplained injuries sustained by three accused persons and contended that the prosecution suppressed the true genesis of the occurrence, which was a rather than a premeditated attack. They relied on precedents including
and
to argue that non-explanation of injuries to the accused casts serious doubt on the prosecution’s version.
Respondent’s Submissions:
Additional Public Prosecutor countered that the evidence clearly showed the appellants had caused the fatal head injury. He argued that the plea of was not raised before the trial court and that the prosecution was not required to explain every injury on the accused. He urged the court to uphold the conviction.
Legal Analysis: Sudden Fight and Failure to Prove Individual Act
The High Court scrutinized the evidence and found several critical flaws in the prosecution’s case. First, the established only one incised wound on the head, despite the complainant claiming two separate blows. Dr. Vipul Jani (PW7) testified that the head injury was consistent with a sword, not a sickle. This contradicted the prosecution’s claim that appellant Pravinsinh had used a sickle on the head.
Second, the court noted that the place of occurrence was not the front yard of the complainant’s house, as alleged, but near the house of Jagatsinh—the very person who had earlier resolved the women’s quarrel. A sketch prepared by the Deputy Mamlatdar and panch witness testimony confirmed blood stains in front of Jagatsinh’s house. The court found it improbable that the deceased would have remained idle after being challenged by Jaydeepsinh and then waited for the accused to arrive.
Third, the court observed that the complainant and his family members—who claimed to be eyewitnesses—had not named the accused before any doctor treating the deceased. The complainant also admitted to carrying a sickle himself and could not explain why he failed to disclose the pool of blood at the actual scene.
Drawing on the principle from Lakshmi Singh that non-explanation of injuries to the accused is a manifest defect, the High Court held that the prosecution had suppressed the true origin of the fight. The evidence pointed to a sudden quarrel between two groups, each armed with weapons, rather than a planned attack by the accused.
The court emphasized that since the trial court had acquitted the accused under (), it was incumbent to prove the individual act of each convicted accused. The prosecution failed to identify which appellant delivered the single . As the court stated: “When the injury on the head was with a , then the accused who gave that was required to be identified to draw the conclusion towards the offence committed.”
Key Observations from the Judgment
“Here the case of sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel becomes proved. There appears to be no premeditation from accused. The case of the complainant of inflicting injury on the head with sickle as well as sword does not get proved. There is only one head injury.”
“When the prosecution could not prove the sole blow on the head by a definite accused, then the present appellants-accused would be entitled for .”
“The complainant failed to explain the injuries suffered by co-accused Bhupendrasinh, his son Indrajitsinh and the appellant accused-Pravinsinh, the complainant cannot be believed that the accused were the aggressors.”
Court’s Decision
The division bench allowed both criminal appeals, setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated , passed by the . The appellants—Pravinsinh Vajesinh Parmar and Tejendrasinh Jagatsinh Parmar—were acquitted of all charges. Their were discharged, and any fine paid was ordered to be refunded.
The ruling underscores the importance of proving in group clashes and reinforces the principle that sudden fights without premeditation do not attract murder convictions under . The judgment serves as a reminder that the prosecution must present a consistent and coherent narrative, particularly when contradicts .
