IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No 375 of 1989
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA
and
MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement? No.
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? No.
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
No.
————————————————————–
LAXMANBHAI U VANKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
————————————————————–
Appearance:
MR KG SHETH for Petitioner
MR SR DIVETIA, A.P.P. for Respondent.
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA and
MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT
Date of decision: 02/05/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per N.J. Pandya,J.)
On 16-10-1988 at about 12-00 noon the accused is
said to have given axe blows on head and legs of the
deceased Ishwarbhai Gordhanbhai Vasava on account of
dispute pertaining to the ‘wada’ land. This happened at
village Kotali Ta. Sankheda District Baroda.
2.The complaint given by Maganbhai Chandubhai,
cousin of the deceased resulted in investigation and
chargesheet which in turn ended up as Sessions Case
No.226/88 tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Baroda. Learned trial Judge accepted the case of the
prosecution and by his judgment dated 29-4-1989 held the
accused guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the
IPC and awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for life.
3.For the death being homicidal there is no
dispute. P.M. note exh.7 proved through the deposition
of Dr. Shah p.w. no. 1 exh. 6 at page 7 of the
paper-book clearly reveals that there were three contused
wounds on head which has resulted in depressed fracture
on frontal bone and there was extra dural hemorrhage.
4.The question therefore will be whether
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused appellant was responsible for the incident ?
5.For this purpose, deposition of Maganbhai
Chandubhai p.w. no. 2 exh.8 page 9 of the paper-book is
first one to be looked at. As per the case of the
prosecution the deceased had stated before him that
Laxman Ukad had given axe blows to the deceased. No
doubt, this witness was not present at the time of the
incident. He was called by the widow and mother of the
deceased and therefore he came on the scene of offence
and had a talk with the deceased.
6.Widow Madhubhai p.w. 3 Exh. 10 has graphically
described the incident. Same is the case with regard to
the other witness Mangiben mother of the deceased p.w. 4
exh. 11.
7.In cross-examination of both these witnesses an
attempt was made by the defence to make out a case that
the deceased himself being aggressor rushed with an axe
towards the accused. There is a further suggestion that
there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased
and in the process the incident happened.
8.This is given a complete go-bye in the further
statement of the accused that came to be recorded at the
end of the trial. Defence taken in the further statement
exh. 4 is of total denial. Thus, there is no reason to
discard the testimony of the said witnesses.
9.Therefore, in our opinion, conviction recorded by
the learned Additional Judge is well merited. There is
no merit in the appeal and hence rejected.
-0-0-0-0-0-