{"id":168843,"date":"2008-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008"},"modified":"2015-09-08T17:13:46","modified_gmt":"2015-09-08T11:43:46","slug":"navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Navinbhai vs ===================================================== on 4 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Navinbhai vs ===================================================== on 4 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/1023\/2000\t 19\/ 19\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 1023 of 2000\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n=====================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=====================================================\n\n\n \n\nNAVINBHAI\nNATHUBHAI NAYAKA PATEL - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=====================================================\nAppearance : \nTHROUGH\nJAIL for Appellant(s) : 1,MS REKHA H\nKAPADIA for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR. MUKESH PATEL, APP for Respondent\n(s) : 1, \n===================================================== \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 4\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)<\/p>\n
1.\t\tChallenge
\nin this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code
\n(?Sthe Code?? for short) is to the correctness of the judgment and
\norder dated 11.10.2000 rendered in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1999 by
\nthe learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari by which the
\nsole Appellant (?Sthe Accused?? for short) has been convicted for
\nthe offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
\n(‘IPC’ for short) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of
\nRs.2000\/- i.d., further SI for two years.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe
\nprosecution case as disclosed from the FIR and unfolded during trial
\nis as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.1\t\tP.W.1
\nNiruben Jivabhai, sister of the deceased Kalavatiben Jivabhai lodged
\na complaint before P.W.9, Jethalal Tribhovandas Patel, P.S.I. of
\nChikhli Police Station, wherein, it is, inter alia alleged that she
\nalong with her deceased sister, and Sarojben were doing miscellaneous
\nlabour work.  The Accused Navinbhai Nathubhai Naika was working as a
\ndriver and was driving the tempo owned by Dhirubhai who was having an
\nagricultural farm in the said locality. The Accused used to carry the
\nlabourers going to the farm of Vinodbhai.  PW-1 Niruben and her
\ndeceased sister also used to go to the farm of Vinodbhai in the tempo
\ndriven by the Accused.  It is  the further case of the prosecution
\nthat the deceased Kalavatiben and the Accused entered into a fanciful
\nrelation and crossed the barriers.  As per the further case of the
\nprosecution, deceased Kalavatiben become pregnant from the Accused
\nand therefore she started pressing the Accused to solemnize the
\nmarriage.\n<\/p>\n
2.3\t\tAs
\nper the further case of the prosecution, as soon as the Accused came
\nto know about the pregnancy carried by deceased Kalavatiben, the
\nAccused was reluctant to recognize the pregnancy and was not inclined
\nto solemnize the marriage with Kalavatiben and started avoiding the
\nsame.  However, deceased Kalavatiben continued to put pressure upon
\nthe Accused to take the responsibility and perform the marriage.
\nSince the Accused was tired of the constant demand of Kalavatiben for
\nperforming the marriage, on the fateful day, i.e. on 25th
\nJanuary 1999 at about 7:00 PM, the Accused came to the house of
\ndeceased Kalavatiben and informed that Vinodbhai had gone to
\nBangalore and his wife ?  Shethani is going out and therefore, she
\nhas called her for collecting the wages. Accordingly, deceased
\nKalavatiben left the house with the Accused for the purpose of
\ncollecting the wages from the wife of Vinodbhai.  Deceased
\nKalavatiben  had not returned in the night.\n<\/p>\n
2.4\t\tPW-1
\nNiruben Jivabhai had not inquired about the deceased Kalavatiben as
\nshe was to go to her sister’s house.  On the next day morning when
\nMukeshbhai, who is the inhabitant of the said locality, informed PW-1
\nNiruben Jivabhai about the dead body of a female lying in the
\noutskirts of village near about the road approaching to Vanzana.
\nPW-1 Niruben Jivabhai, therefore, rushed to the place, where the dead
\nbody was lying.  She recognized the dead body as that of her sister
\nKalavatiben which had multiple injuries.\n<\/p>\n
2.5\t\tThe
\naforesaid complaint was recorded by P.W.9-Jethalal Tribhovandas, PSI
\nand accordingly, the offence was registered.  The said complaint is
\non record at Exh.7. Thereafter he started investigation. During the
\ncourse of the investigation, he held the inquest on the dead body of
\ndeceased Kalavatiben and thereafter sent the dead body for autopsy.
\nHe arrested the Accused after drawing the panchnama of his person in
\nthe presence of the panchas.  During the course of investigation, the
\nAccused had shown his willingness to show his clothes having blood
\nstains and also the muddamal article scythe (dharia) used for
\ncommitting the murder of Kalavatiben.  On the basis of the
\ninformation supplied by him, clothes as well as scythe were recovered
\nand accordingly discovery panchnama was drawn in presence of panchas
\nand the said muddamal articles were sent to FSL.  He has also
\nrecorded the statement of witnesses.  Thereafter he transferred the
\ninvestigation.\n<\/p>\n
2.6\t\tOn
\nreceipt of the FSL as well as the post mortem report, as the
\nsufficient incriminating evidence was found against the Accused,
\ncharge sheet was filed against the Accused for the offence u\/s 302
\nIPC, in the court of learned JMFC, Chikhli.\n<\/p>\n
2.7\t\tAs
\nthe offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court
\nof Sessions, the learned JMFC, Chikhli committed the case to the
\nCourt of Sessions, Valsad at Navsari, where it was numbered as
\nSessions Case No. 39 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
2.8\t\tThe
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari (‘the trial
\ncourt’ for short) to whom the case was made over for trial framed
\ncharge against the Accused for commission of offence punishable under
\nSection 302 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the
\nAccused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to
\nbe tried and, therefore, he was put to trial by the trial Court in
\nSessions Case No.39 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
2.9\t\tIn
\norder to bring home the charge levelled against the Accused, the
\nprosecution has examined in all 9 witnesses and relied upon their
\noral testimonies, details of which have been given in paragraph 13 of
\nthe impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
2.10\t\tTo
\nprove the culpability of the Accused, the prosecution has also
\nproduced number of documents and relied upon the contents of the
\nsame, details of which have been given in paragraph 14 of the
\nimpugned judgment an order.\n<\/p>\n
2.11\t\tAfter
\nrecording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the
\ntrial court recorded the further statement of the Accused as required
\nunder Section 313 of the Code. In his further statement the Accused
\ndenied the case of the prosecution in its entirety and stated that he
\nis innocent. He has been falsely ropped in the murder trial. However,
\nhe has neither produced any evidence nor did he examine any witness
\nin support of his defence.\n<\/p>\n
2.12\t\tOn
\nappreciation, evaluation, analysis and scrutiny of the evidence on
\nrecord, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the
\nprosecution has established that the deceased Kalavatiben had died a
\nhomicidal death. It is also held by the trial court that the
\nprosecution has, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence,
\nsuccessfully established the complicity of the Accused for commission
\nof the offence of murder of Kalavatiben.  The trial court, therefore,
\nconvicted the Accused for the offence of murder of Kalavatiben
\npunishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment
\nfor life and fine of Rs.2000\/- i.d. further SI of 2  years, which has
\ngiven rise to the instant Criminal Appeal at the instance of the
\nAccused, which he has filed from Jail.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tMs.\n<\/p>\n
Rekha Kapadia, learned advocate appointed by Free Legal Aid Committee
\nfor the Accused, has submitted that there is no eye witness to the
\nincident. The prosecution has failed to prove the motive for
\ncommitting the crime. The prosecution has failed to prove the
\nfanciful relations between deceased Kalavatiben and the Accused.  The
\npanch witnesses of the discovery panchnama of the weapon scythe as
\nwell as the clothes worn by the Accused, have not supported the
\nprosecution case, therefore, the prosecution could not prove the
\ndiscovery panchnama.  In sum and substance, according to her, this is
\na case of ‘no evidence’ and the prosecution has not been able to
\nestablish the chain of circumstances  to connect the Accused with the
\ncrime.\n<\/p>\n
3.1\t\tOn
\nthe aforesaid premises, according to her, there is no eye witness to
\nthe incident, and the circumstantial evidence on which the
\nprosecution has placed reliance, does not complete the chain of
\ncircumstances to connect the Accused with the crime and, therefore,
\nby allowing the appeal, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
\ntrial court convicting the Accused for commission of the offence
\nunder Section 302 IPC and sentencing him for the said offence
\ndeserves to be quashed and set aside and  the Accused may be
\nacquitted of the offence with which he was charged. She, therefore,
\nurged to allow the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tPer
\ncontra, Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned APP has supported the judgment and
\norder passed by the trial court and submitted that it is just and
\nproper and does not require interference of this Court. He has
\nfurther contended that no case is made out to take a view contrary to
\nthe view taken by the trial court. According to him, it is true that
\nthere is no eye witness to the incident of murder of Kalavatiben.
\nHowever, there is a consistent evidence with regard to ‘last seen
\ntogether’, cordial and fanciful relations between deceased
\nKalavatiben and the Accused, deceased becoming pregnant by the
\nAccused, discovery panchnama and the FSL report.  All the
\ncircumstances unerringly lead to the conclusion that the Accused has
\ncommitted the offence of murder of Kalavatiben. Therefore, the
\nprosecution has  established the complicity of the Accused for
\ncommitting the offence of murder.   On the aforesaid premises, he
\nsubmitted that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
\nHe, therefore, urged to dismiss the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tWe
\nhave considered the submissions advanced by Ms. Rekha Kapadia,
\nlearned Advocate of the Accused and  Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned APP
\nfor respondent ?  State of Gujarat. We have also perused the
\nimpugned judgment and order and the set of evidence.  This
\nCourt has undertaken a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all
\nvital features of the case and the entire evidence on record which is
\nread and re-read by the learned advocates for the parties with
\nreference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case.  In
\nlight of caution sounded by the Supreme Court while dealing with the
\ncases in which sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on the
\naccused on the basis of circumstantial evidence,  this Court has
\nexamined the entire evidence on record for itself independently of
\nthe trial Court and examined arguments advanced on behalf of the
\naccused and infirmities pressed, scrupulously with a view to find out
\nas to whether it was the accused and none else who has committed the
\noffence as alleged against him.  We have also gone through the
\ndocuments which  are on record  and forming part of the paper book.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tAt
\nthe outset, be it noted that so far as the homicidal
\ndeath of Kalavatiben is concerned, no dispute is raised by the
\nlearned advocate for the Accused before this Court. It is submitted
\nby the learned advocate of the Accused that Kalavatiben died a
\nhomicidal death. However, we have perused the evidence of P.W.2, Dr.
\nHinaben M. Patel at Exh. 13, who performed the postmortem on the
\ndead-body of Kalavatiben and prepared the autopsy report which is on
\nrecord at Exh.14.\n<\/p>\n
6.1
\nA conjoint reading of evidence of PW-2 Dr. Hinaben M. Patel, at
\nExh.13 and autopsy report at Ex.14, there is no manner of doubt that
\ndeceased Kalavatiben had died a homicidal death. There were in all 23
\nexternal injuries on the dead body of Kalavati.  They are stab
\nwounds, Multiple contused abrasions, chop wounds, etc. Cause of death
\nof the deceased was due to shock as a result of haemorrhage due to
\nmultiple injuries associated with smothering.  In view of the
\naforesaid evidence, according to us, the trial court has rightly held
\nthat deceased Kalavatiben had died a homicidal death and we confirm
\nthe said finding of the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tNow
\nthe next question which is required to be examined is, as to whether
\nthe Accused has committed the offence of murder of Kalavatiben
\npunishable under Section 302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tSo
\nfar as the instant case is concerned, there is no eye witness to the
\nincident of killing deceased Kalavatiben. The whole case of the
\nprosecution has rested on the circumstantial evidence.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIt
\nis settled principle of law that in order to sustain conviction on
\nthe basis of circumstantial evidence, prosecution must fulfill three
\nconditions:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)
\n\tthe circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be
\n\tdrawn must be cogently and firmly established;\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)
\n\tthose circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly
\n\tpointing towards the guilt of the accused;\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)
\n\tthe circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so
\n\tcomplete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
\n\thuman probability the crime was committed by the accused and none
\n\telse, and it should also be incapable of explanation of any other
\n\thypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Further, in cases
\n\tdepending largely upon circumstantial evidence there is always a
\n\tdanger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal
\n\tproof and such suspicion however so strong cannot be allowed to take
\n\tthe place of proof. The court has to be watchful and ensure that
\n\tconjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The
\n\tCourt must satisfy itself that the various circumstances in the
\n\tchain of evidence should be established clearly and that the
\n\tcompleted chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood
\n\tof the innocence of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nabove principles are laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
\n Jaharlal Das v.    State of Orissa  AIR<\/a> 1991 SC 1388.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tIt
\nis also one of the settled principles of law that witnesses may tell
\nlies but not circumstances. The Court must adopt cautious approach
\nfor basing conviction on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court
\nhas reiterated it in the case of  State of Haryana v. Ved Prakash,
\nAIR<\/a> 1994 SC 468.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tThe
\nSupreme Court in the case of  Ramkumar Madhusudan Pathak v. State
\nof Gujarat,<\/a> (1998) 7 SCC 702 has aptly and elaborately laid down
\nthe principles as to which are the circumstances establishing guilt
\nof the accused.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tThe
\nSupreme Court in the very well known case of  Sharad Birdhichand
\nSarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR<\/a> 1984 SC 1622, has laid down
\nfollowing five principles to base conviction on the circumstantial
\nevidence:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)
\n\t\t\tthe circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
\n\tis to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances
\n\tconcerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established;\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)
\n\t\tthe facts so established should be consistent only with the
\n\thypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should
\n\tnot be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused
\n\tis guilty;\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)
\n\t\tthe circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
\n\ttendency;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\t\tthey
\n\tshould exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
\n\tproved, and<\/p>\n
\t(v)\t\tthere
\n\tmust be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any
\n\treasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence
\n\tof the accused and must show that in all human probability the act
\n\tmust have been done by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tIn
\nthe case of  Jaipal v. State of Haryana,<\/a> (2003) 1 SCC 169, the
\nSupreme Court has held that merely because the accused could have had
\na motive for causing death of the deceased it would not by itself be
\nenough to sustain the finding of guilt against him.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tIn
\nthe latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of  Swamy
\nShraddananda alias Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka,
\n2007 AIR SCW 4513, the Supreme Court has said that law in this behalf
\nis no more res-integra and also reiterated the five principles
\nenunciated by the Supreme Court in its previous decision in the case
\nof   Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) to base conviction on
\ncircumstantial evidence.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tKeeping
\nin forefront the aforesaid principles elucidated by the Supreme
\nCourt, we may now advert to the evidence adduced by the prosecution
\nto find out whether the prosecution has  successfully established the
\nchain of circumstances to connect the accused with the crime and to
\nbase conviction on the basis of the circumstantial evidence adduced
\nby it.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tTo
\nprove the case against the accused on the basis of circumstantial
\nevidence, the prosecution has pitted the following circumstances
\nagainst the accused:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\t\tThere
\nwas a cordial and fanciful relation between the deceased and the
\nAccused.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\t\tDeceased
\nbecame pregnant by the Accused, therefore, deceased Kalavatiben
\nwanted to marry the Accused.  Therefore, the Accused made his mind to
\nkill her.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tOn
\nthe previous day of the murder of Kalavatiben, Accused had taken
\nKalavatiben with him and thereafter Kalavatiben was not seen alive by
\nanybody and her dead body was found.  In this connection the Accused
\nhas not given any explanation.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\t\tWhile
\nassaulting Kalavatiben, the Accused has also received injuries,
\nincluding nail mark injuries, which also proved that the Accused has
\ncommitted the murder of Kalavatiben.  In this connection also, the
\nAccused has not given any explanation.\n<\/p>\n
(v)\t\tRecovery
\nof clothes worn by the Accused and the weapon scythe at the instance
\nof the Accused having blood stains ‘A’ group which is similar to the
\nblood group of deceased Kalavatiben, as per the FSL report.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tTo
\nestablish the first two circumstances, the prosecution has mainly
\nrelied upon the evidence of P.W.1, Niruben Jivabhai at Exh. 5 and
\nPW-3 Jyotiben Amratbhai at Exh.15.  PW-1 Niruben Jivabhai, who has
\nlodged the complaint, inter alia testified that her deceased sister
\nKalavatiben had cordial and fanciful relations with the Accused and
\nfrom the said fanciful relations, her deceased sister Kalavatiben
\nbecame pregnant and therefore, her deceased sister Kalavatiben
\npressurized the Accused to marry her which was disliked by the
\nAccused.  Initially, the Accused was willing to marry her deceased
\nsister Kalavatiben.  But after she became pregnant, the Accused
\nrefused to marry her.  The Accused wanted to abort the pregnancy but
\ndeceased Kalavatiben refused to do the same, therefore, they
\nquarreled with each other.  Similar is the version of PW-3 Jyotiben
\nAmratbhai at Exh.15.\n<\/p>\n
17.1
\n\tIt may be noted that both the above named witnesses were
\ncross-examined at length but nothing substantial could be brought out
\nwhich would impeach the credibility of their evidence. According to
\nus, their evidence is unimpeachable, inspired confidence and trust
\nworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these
\nwitnesses.  The prosecution has established that the Accused and
\ndeceased Kalavatiben had cordial and fanciful relations and out of
\nthat relation deceased Kalavatiben became pregnant and refused to
\nabort the pregnancy.  Therefore, the prosecution has established the
\nfirst two circumstances against the Accused for committing the murder
\nof Kalavatiben.\n<\/p>\n
17.2\t\tSo
\nfar as the third circumstance is concerned, the prosecution has
\nrelied upon the evidence of PW-1 Niruben Jivabhai at Exh.5.  She has
\ninter alia testified that on the day of incident, she and her sister
\nKalavatiben had returned to their residence after labour work. At
\n7:00 pm the Accused came to their house and took deceased Kalavatiben
\nwith him for the purpose of receiving the wages from the house of
\nVinodbhai.  Kalavatiben, therefore, accompanied the Accused.
\nKalavatiben, thereafter had not returned to the house and on the next
\nday her dead body was found naked in Rankuan Bazaar Faria with
\nmultiple injuries on her body.  On this aspect also PW-1 Niruben
\nJivabhai was cross-examined but nothing substantial has been brought
\nout from her evidence which would impeach her credibility.  The
\nAccused has not given any plausible reason or explanation to the fact
\nthat where Kalavatiben had gone after he had taken her with him.
\nIt is for the Accused to explain this circumstance. Since the Accused
\nfailed to explain this circumstance and was found lastly in the
\ncompany of Kalavatiben, is the very important circumstance, which
\nleads to the conclusion that the Accused has committed the murder of
\nKalavatiben.\n<\/p>\n
17.3\t\tNow,
\nso far as the fourth circumstance is concerned, the Accused has also
\nreceived injuries on his body.  In this connection, the prosecution
\nhas relied upon the evidence of PW-4 Ramchandra Pandharinath Patil,
\nMedical Officer, who has testified that the Accused was brought to
\nhim for medical check up.  During his check up he has noted four
\ninjuries on the person of the Accused. First one on the chest, second
\none on the right arm, third one on the left cheek and the fourth one
\non the little finger of right hand.  He has also testified that the
\ninjuries sustained by the Accused were infact nail marks, therefore,
\npossibility cannot be ruled out that while assaulting Kalavatiben,
\nKalavatiben must have resisted and because of the same, the Accused
\nmust have received the aforesaid four injuries on his person.  PW-4
\nRamchandra Pandharinath Patil, Medical Officer, has also issued
\nmedical certificate in this regard which is on record at Exh.18.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tTherefore,
\nthis is also one of the important circumstances, which goes against
\nthe Accused. The Accused could not explain as to how he has received
\nthe aforesaid four injuries on his person and that too with the
\nnails.\n<\/p>\n
17.4\t\tNow
\nthe fifth circumstance is the discovery of the clothes and weapon
\nscythe recovered at the instance of the Accused, stained with ‘A’
\nblood group, which is similar to the blood group of deceased
\nKalavatiben.  In this connection, the prosecution has examined and
\nrelied upon the oral testimony of PW-5 Kantubhai Jivanbhai Patel at
\nExh.21 ?  panchwitness of panchnama Exh.22 and Exh.23.  Exh.22 is
\nthe panchnama of the person of the Accused whereas Exh.23 is the
\ndiscovery panchnama of the weapon scythe as well as clothes worn by
\nthe Accused.  It may be noted that PW-5 Kantubhai Jivanbhai Patel has
\nnot supported the prosecution case and therefore he was declared
\nhostile.  However, the fact remains that the contents of the
\npanchnama have been proved from the oral testimony of PW-9 Jethalal
\nTribhovandas ?  Investigating Officer. It is duly proved that when
\nthe Accused was arrested, he was having four injuries on his person,
\nand the clothes worn by him were stained with blood.  FSL report at
\nExhibits 31 and 32, in terms certified that deceased Kalavatiben was
\nhaving ‘A’ blood group, and blood stain of similar blood group was
\nfound on the clothes of the Accused and the weapon scythe.  On the
\nbasis of this circumstance also, the prosecution has successfully
\nestablished the complicity of the Accused for committing the murder
\nof Kalavatiben.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tOn
\nover all reappraisal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
\nall the above mentioned five circumstances which are pitted against
\nthe accused are established and the prosecution has been able to
\nimmaculately establish that the Accused has committed murder of
\nKalavatiben. Therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the
\nAccused for commission of murder of Kalavatiben.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tSuffice
\nit to say that the trial Court has given cogent and convincing
\nreasons for recording the conviction against the Accused.  Ms. Rekha
\nKapadia, learned advocate of the Accused is unable to dislodge the
\nsaid finding, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of
\nconviction.\n<\/p>\n
20.\t\tWe
\nfind ourselves in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
\nconclusion and resultant order of conviction and sentence passed by
\nthe trial court against the Accused, as according to us no other
\nfinding, conclusion or order except the one reached by the trial
\ncourt is possible on the evidence adduced by the prosecution and on
\nthe facts and in the circumstances emerging from the record of the
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
21.\t\tSeen
\nin the above context, the Appeal lacks merit and deserves to be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
22.\t\tFor
\nthe foregoing reasons, the Appeal fails and accordingly it is
\ndismissed, the result of which is that the judgment and order dated
\n11.10.2000 rendered in Sessions Case No.
\n39 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at
\nNavsari by which the Accused has been convicted for the offence
\npunishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for
\nlife and fine of Rs.2000\/- i.d., further imprisonment for two years,
\nis hereby confirmed and maintained.\n<\/p>\n
23.\t\tMuddamal
\narticles to be disposed of in terms of the directions contained in
\nthe judgment and order of the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
(A.M.\n<\/p>\n
Kapadia, J.)<\/p>\n
(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n
Saiyed, J.)<\/p>\n
Jayanti*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Navinbhai vs ===================================================== on 4 August, 2008 Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1023\/2000 19\/ 19 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1023 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168843","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNavinbhai vs ===================================================== on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Navinbhai vs ===================================================== on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-08T11:43:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Navinbhai vs ===================================================== on 4 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-08T11:43:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3911,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Navinbhai vs ===================================================== on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-08T11:43:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Navinbhai vs ===================================================== on 4 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Navinbhai vs ===================================================== on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Navinbhai vs ===================================================== on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-08T11:43:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Navinbhai vs ===================================================== on 4 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-08T11:43:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008"},"wordCount":3911,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008","name":"Navinbhai vs ===================================================== on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-08T11:43:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinbhai-vs-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Navinbhai vs ===================================================== on 4 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168843","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168843"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168843\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}