Raval Ramanbhai Gokabhai vs The State of Gujarat

A.L. Dave, J.—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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We have examined the record and proceedings in the context of rival submissions.

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.

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.

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 His to 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.

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.

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.