AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.L. Dave, J.—The appellant came to be convicted by Sessions Court, Nadiad, for the offence of murder of Ranchhodbhai Gandabhai allegedly committed by him during the night falling between 15/6/2000 and 16/6/2000 in the outskirts of village Sojitra in field bearing survey No. 418 owned by Dipakbhai Zaverbhai Patel. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months by judgment dated 25/10/2002 rendered in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2001 and hence this appeal.
The case of the prosecution against the appellant was that the appellant was working with Dipakbhai Zaverbhai Patel, the first informant in the agriculture field. About 3 months prior to the incident, he was replaced by deceased Ranchhodbhai Gandabhai and was rendered jobless. The appellant, therefore, had a grievance or grudge against the deceased victim Ranchhodbhai Gandabhai. This grievance, he seems to have nurtured till the incident which occurred during the night falling between 15/6/2000 and 16/6/2000. To indicate this, the prosecution has adduced evidence to the effect that about fortnight before the incident, the appellant had quarreled with the deceased while the deceased was passing through the field of one Rajesh Mahashankar Dave. During the quarrel, while they were separated, he had intimidated the deceased Ranchhodbhai and had told him that - he will be taken care of - by the accused. This incident was witnessed by Bhupesh Mahashankar as well so also by Desaibhai Mangalbhai Baraiya. Thereafter, on the day of incident itself, the appellant was found to be moving with a Dhariya in his hand and was asked by Hasmukhbhai as to why he is moving with Dhariya and the appellant is said to have replied that he wants to ''inaugurate Dhariya''. After the incident, dead-body of Ranchhodbhai was found by villagers in the morning hours of 16/6/2000. Dipakbhai Zaverbhai was informed about the same by his wife Ritaben while Dipakbhai was at village Od. Dipakbhai came to Sojitra and lodged FIT with Sojitra Police Station. On basis of the FIR offence was registered and investigated. The appellant was searched for, but was not found traceable. The appellant seems to have absconded for a long time of about 6 months and came to be arrested on 3/1/2001. Few days before the arrest, it is found that the appellant had approached Rajesh Mahashankar Dave in his field during night hours. According to Rajesh Mahashankar Dave, the appellant made extra judicial confession of having committed murder of victim Ranchhodbhai Gandabhai. It also appears that the appellant was suffering from acute hunger. He was, therefore, offered food which he took even though it was not wholesome and was soaked with water. After the arrest, the appellant discovered Dhariya though nothing incriminating was found.
The investigating agency having found sufficient material, filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Petlad, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Nadiad and Sessions Case No. 23 of 2001 came to be registered.
We have heard learned advocate Mr. NK Majmudar for the appellant and Ld. APP Mr. MR Mangdey for the respondent - State. We are taking through the record and proceedings.
Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has raised following points:
According to Mr. Majmudar, there is no direct evidence as to the incident or as to involvement of the appellant in the incident as there are no eye witnesses to the incident.
There is no evidence to show any threat given by the appellant to the deceased.
The motive which is attributed to the appellant about his replacement in job by the deceased is a stale incident and would not provide a valid motive for murder.
The extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before Rajesh Mahashankar Dave is not reliable for the reason that it is made after 6 months before a person in whom the appellant would have no reason to confide It is also suggested that the extra judicial confession does not indicate the place where the incident has occurred. Even the presence of Rajesh Mahashankar Dave in the field at the time when the confession is claimed to have been made, is a matter of the doubt and, therefore, the confession could not have been considered by the trial Court.
Lastly, it is contended that there is no evidence of last seen together so far as the appellant and victim are concerned.
Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be allowed.
5.1. We have heard Ld. APP Mr. Mengdey. He has opposed the appeal.
We have examined the record and proceedings in context of rival side submissions.
There is no dispute about the fact that the case against the appellant depends on circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence. There is no eye witness to the incident.
If the evidence is considered, deposition of the first informant Dipakbhai Zaverbhai Patel, PW 1, would go to show that he has agricultural land located in outskirts of village Sojitra and the appellant was formerly working with him as a labourer. Somehow Dipakbhai was not satisfied with the work of appellant and he, therefore, terminated his service and employed deceased Ranchhodbhai Gandabhai in place of the appellant. The appellant, therefore, had grievance. This aspect is emerging from the evidence of Dipakbhai Zaverbhai and even Rajeshbhai Mahashankar Dave, PW 3 and Bhupeshbhai Mahashankar Dave PW 4 and Desaibhai Mangalbhai Baraiya PW 5. These three witnesses go to show that about 3 days prior to the incident, while the appellant was working in the field of Rajesh Mahashankar Dave with a mason, the deceased passed through the field for going from one field of Dipakbhai to another field and at that point of time, the appellant took up a quarrel with the deceased on the ground of the deceased replacing the appellant in the job with Dipakbhai Zaverbhai. When two were separated, the appellant threatened the deceased that he will be taken care of. Thereafter, on the day of incident, the appellant has made a statement in presence of Ranchhodbhai Veribhai Patel PW 7 that he wants to inaugurate the Dhariya. The appellant also indicated that he is very much annoyed with the deceased Ranchhodbhai as Ranchhodbhai had replaced the appellant and, therefore, he wants to inaugurate Dhariya on deceased Ranchhodbhai. It also appears that he was armed with Dhariya, which was identified to be the Muddamal Dhariya discovered by the appellant after his arrest.
Thereafter, the incident occurs and the appellant is found absconding for about 6 months till he is arrested on 3/1/2001. This would reflect on his subsequent conduct.
9.1. It also transpires from the evidence of Rajesh Mahashankar Dave that during this period of the abscondence, the appellant had approached him one night while the witness was in his field protecting the crop and had made a confession about having committed murder of deceased Ranchhodbhai, for which he repented. It also transpires from evidence of Rajesh Mahashankar Dave, PW 3 that the appellant was badly suffering from hunger. He was, therefore, offered Chapatis, which he took with tea and buttermilk. The Chapatis were soaked with water. Despite that, they were eaten by the appellant.
9.2. Subsequent to arrest, the appellant has discovered the Dhariya in presence of panch witness, which has is supported by panch witness PW 9 - Ranchhodbhai Dhulabhai.
Despite close scrutiny of these pieces of evidence, we do not find any material which would render the evidence doubtful. The evidence has come in a natural manner and flow. It is tested on touchstone of cross-examination, but in vain so far as the defence is concerned. On the contrary, it emerges from cross-examination of Bhupesh Mahashankar Dave PW 4 that he learnt about the appellant having grievance against the deceased when they quarreled 15 days prior to the incident. The factum of the appellant nurturing grievance against the deceased till 15 days prior to the incident is thus proved through cross-examination of this witness. The fact that the appellant was nurturing the grievance even till the day of incident, is proved through PW 7 Ranchhodbhai Veribhai. The contention, therefore, that the motive attributed to the appellant is on stale incident cannot be accepted. It was contended that there is no evidence to show that any threat was given by the appellant to the deceased. But it is not possible to accept this contention either for the reason that evidence of Rajesh Mahashankar Dave and Bhupesh Mahashankar Dave, PWs 3 and 4 clearly narrates that 15 days prior to the incident, the appellant had quarreled with the deceased and on being separated, had threatened the deceased.
10.1. So far as the extra judicial confession is concerned, non-mentioning of the place of incident in the extra judicial confession may not be fatal to the prosecution, if otherwise the extra judicial confession is found to be reliable in the main. Evidence of Rajesh Mahashankar Dave, PW 3, has come in a natural way and inspires confidence. It is true that the appellant may not have reason to confide him ordinarily, but the circumstances in which the confession is made, are strong enough to support the extra judicial confession. The appellant has absconded after the incident. He comes from a poor strata of society and is not so resourceful. He is wandering in fields in nights and comes across the witness. He is found to be suffering badly from hunger; such a hunger that he eats away Chapatis which are not wholesome and are soaked with water. The circumstances in which appellant was put and made the extra judicial confession, in our view, does not make it so doubtful. We may hasten to add that even if the extra judicial confession is removed from the evidence against the appellant, then also the circumstances against the appellant are strong enough to connect him with the crime. After the incident, the appellant had absconded. Upon arrest, after 6 months, he has discovered the weapon and that weapon was identified by the witness Ranchhodbhai Veribhai to be the same weapon which he was carrying with him on the day of incident, stating that he is very much annoyed with the deceased and wants to inaugurate Dhariya on him.
The medical evidence, if examined, would go to show that the deceased had a cut throat injury which resulted into his death because of profused bleeding and shock resulting therefrom. The deceased, therefore, died homicidal death.
The above discussion would go to show that the appellant had a grievance, which served as a motive for him to murder the deceased. He was found to be nurturing that grievance 15 days prior to the incident and even on the day of the incident. The appellant was then found absconding for 6 months during which he has made an extra judicial confession of his act with repentance. He has discovered the weapon which is identified to be the same weapon which he was carrying on the day of incident, just before the incident. Under the circumstances, the trial Court cannot be said to have erred in convicting the appellant.
For the foregoing reasons, we find no merits in the appeal. The appeal must fail and it stands dismissed.