Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/790/2005 4/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 790 of 2005
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
RAVAL
RAMANBHAI GOKABHAI - Appellant(s)
Versus
THE
STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
THROUGH
JAIL for
Appellant(s): 1,MS BANNA S DUTTA for Appellant(s):1,
MR HH PARIKH
ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 22/04/2010
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
The
appellant is convicted by Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) at
Gandhinagar for the offence of murder of Ranchhodbhai Fulabhai Ravar
by judgment and order dated 7.1.2004 rendered in Sessions Case No.42
of 2003.
2. As
per the prosecution case, the incident occurred on 19.10.2002 at
about 20-30 hours at village Randheja near Ravar Vas. It is the case
of the prosecution that the appellant was aggrieved against the
deceased by his conviction in connection with the offence of
attempted murder and he, therefore, at the relevant time assaulted
the deceased with a sickle and inflicted blows on head and other
parts of the body. He also intimidated the deceased. An FIR was,
therefore, lodged with Pethapur Police Station vide CR No.181 of
2002. Offence was registered and investigated and ultimately
charge-sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC, Gandhinagar, who, in
turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Case
No.42 of 2003 came to be registered.
3. Charges
were framed against the accused at Exh.4 for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 324, 326, 302, 504 and 506(2) of IPC, to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial Court found
that the prosecution was successful in proving charge of murder
against the appellant and, therefore, convicted him for the same and
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo RI for six months, whereas the
accused-appellant came to be acquitted for rest of the charges.
4. Learned
advocate Ms Banna Dutta for the appellant submitted that though the
prosecution has examined as many as three eye-witnesses, the fact
remains that the deceased died after a long spell of about six weeks.
After the incident, the deceased was admitted to the hospital for
treatment and was discharged on 28.10.2002. However, he again got
admitted in the hospital on 28.11.2002 and died on that very day. The
prosecution has not been able to establish that the deceased died
because of the injuries suffered by him. Ms Dutta further submitted
that in fact the deceased had recovered and was discharged from
hospital and, therefore, the nexus between the cause of death and the
incident is not established. The trial Court has overlooked this
aspect while recording conviction. Therefore, the appeal may be
allowed and the order of conviction may be set aside.
5. Learned
APP Mr Parikh has opposed this appeal. According to him, there are
eye-witnesses to the incident. He submitted that though there is a
time lag between the incident and the death, the medical evidence
would show that though the deceased was discharged from hospital, he
had not fully recovered and he developed complications in the
injuries caused by the appellant to him, which ultimately resulted
into his death. Mr Parikh, therefore, submitted that the appeal may
be dismissed.
6. We
have examined the record and proceedings in the context of rival
submissions.
7. Involvement
of the appellant in the incident is established by the prosecution by
examining Kalabhai Vahjibhai Raval (Exh.7), Naranbhai Bhalabhai Raval
(Exh.15) and Sankabhai Vahjibhai Raval (Exh.19). All the three
eye-witnesses have rendered consistent evidence as to how the
incident occurred and how the appellant assaulted the deceased and
caused injuries to him. All the witnesses have been tested on the
touchstone of cross-examination, but nothing substantial emerges to
render any of the deposition doubtful. Learned advocate for the
appellant is also not in a position to point out any discrepancy or
weakness in the evidence of these witnesses. Involvement of the
appellant in the incident is, therefore, duly established.
8. The
medical evidence in the form of evidence of Dr Shilpaben Kanubhai
Yadav (Exh.16) is relevant. She had treated the deceased initially
and she says that on 19.10.2002 the deceased was brought to Ahmedabad
Civil Hospital for treatment with history of assault with sickle and
pipe. He had injury on head 3 cm. long which was sutured. There were
two other injuries which were 5 cm. long with sutures and there was
an injury 3 cm. long on the occipital region. There was a sutured
wound on the right scapula region. There was a fracture of sphenoid
aspect of right scapula. According to the Doctor, the patient was
treated and ultimately discharged on 28.10.2002. The injuries were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and were
possible with muddamal sickle.
9. The
second evidence is of Dr Vinayak Rao Patil who had performed the
post-mortem. He describes the injuries noticed by him in column No.17
of the post-mortem notes as under :-
17.(1) A healed injury
present over rt. mastoid region of head of size 3.5 X 1 c.m. it is
scar.
(2) A healed injury
present on rt. scapula of back, size 1 X 1 cm present at lower end of
scapula scar;
(3) A bony gap present in
rt. side of head seen externally as depression 5.5 X 4.5 cm.
sized.
9.1 He
also noticed fracture of right side of skull. The injuries were
ante-mortem. Both the lungs were congested. In his opinion, the death
was due to respiratory failure following head injury and its
complications. In his deposition, he states that during post-mortem,
he found fracture of the skull. He performed a surgical operation by
which the broken pieces of skull were removed. There was bleeding
around the brain substance. There was also pus found there. Whitish
thick fluid was also found. After examining the Histo pathological
report, the Doctor formed an opinion that the death was due to
complications resulting out of injury caused to the deceased. In our
opinion, the death, therefore, occurred because of the injuries
caused to the deceased by the appellant with sickle.
10. As
can be seen from the nature of injuries and the manner in which the
incident occurred, there is no scope for forming any other opinion
than to conclude that the appellant wilfully committed murder of the
deceased by intentionally causing the injuries, which were sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
11. We
do not find any merits in the appeal. The appeal must fail and stands
dismissed. The judgment and order dated 7.1.2004 passed by the
Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar in Sessions Case
No.42 of 2003 is hereby confirmed.
(A.L.
DAVE, J.)
(BANKIM
N. MEHTA, J.)
zgs/-
Top