AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is preferred under Section 374 of
the Criminal Procedure Code by the convict against
judgment and order dated 22.10.2012 by 4th Additional
Sessions Judge, Anand in Sessions Case No.8 of 2012. By
the aforesaid judgment and order, the Court recorded
conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code and inflicted sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for life. The Court also imposed
fine of Rs.20,000/-. The appellant is the sole convict.
The facts in brief are that an FIR being I-CR
No.171 of 2011 came to be registered with Anand Police
Station by one Alimabanu Bhikhasha Diwan, wherein it is
narrated that the appellant-accused was after her
daughter Sahidabanu (deceased) and informed her daughter
that he was in love with her. The deceased had rebuked
the accused. Feeling offended and keeping this in mind,
on 18.09.2011, when the informant and Sahidabanu had gone
for picking fire wood and while they were returning, at
around 11;30, the accused assaulted the daughter
Sahidabanu from behind, catching hold of her and when the
informant tried to intervene, the accused assaulted
Sahidabanu with knife on her neck. As a result, she fell
down and the accused ran away from the place. On the
informant raising shouts for help, the relatives rushed
to place and took Sahidabanu to hospital where she was
declared dead and as a result, FIR came to be registered.
After due investigation, charge sheet came to be filed
and upon compliance of Section 209, CrPC, sessions came
to be committed.
2.1 Vide Exh.4, charge came to be framed against
the accused for offence under Section 302 . The accused,
having pleaded not guilty, claimed to be tried.
2.2 During the course of trial, the prosecution
examined 21 witnesses, which included eyewitnesses, panch
witnesses, medical witnesses, FSL witnesses and the
police witnesses. The prosecution also proved 20
documents.
2.3 Upon consideration of the evidence on record,
the Sessions Court proceeded to record further statement
and thereafter, by the impugned judgment and order,
convicted the accused for the offence and inflicted
punishment.
Learned Advocate for the appellant has
submitted that the judgment and order recording
conviction is against the evidence on record and that the
prosecution has failed to establish charge beyond
reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the Sessions
Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence of PW
No.1 (informant-mother of the deceased), as she, in her
deposition, has given a version which is not matching
with the version in the FIR. The case of the prosecution
was on the footing that the accused had one-sided love
with deceased Sahidabanu and because of that, incident
took place whereas in deposition, PW No.1 has stated that
she was aware of the love affair of Sahidabanu and
accused and when she came to know about it, she had
scolded both of them and that she had opposed the
relations on account of her status in society and
community. It is also submitted that PW No.1 could not
be termed to be an eyewitness, as from her deposition, it
appears that she had reached the place of incident after
hearing screaming.
3.1 Learned Advocate for the appellant also
emphasized that panch witnesses of inquest panchnama have
not supported case of the prosecution. It is submitted
that PW No.9-Bhaveshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel, who is a
panch witness of the panchnama drawn at the time of
seizure of cloths was not able to recognize the accused
in the Court, though the panchnama was carried out in his
presence. It is also submitted that PW No.10-Ileshbhai
Manubhai Patel, who is the second panch witness, has not
supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted
that in view of the fact that the prosecution was not
supported by independent witnesses, the case of the
appellant deserves consideration and the conviction
recorded is required to be set aside.
As against this, learned APP has strongly
supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted
that the judgment is well reasoned and in full
appreciation of the evidence and there is nothing pointed
out by the appellant to suggest any perversity in the
judgment. It is submitted that there is enough medical
evidence to establish the case of murder. There is
enough evidence to establish motive behind the incident
and there is enough scientific evidence to connect the
accused with the offence.
Having considered the rival submissions, the
Court now proceeds to peruse the evidence on record, the
first of which being of PW No.1-Alimabanu-Exh.10
(informant-mother of the deceased). In the evidence in
chief, this witness has given a version which is
consistent with the FIR. She has deposed that the
accused was making attempts to elope with her daughter
Sahidabanu (deceased), but her daughter was consistently
refusing and hence, on the day of incident, the accused
carried out assault and gave knife blows on the vital
parts of the body of her daughter. She has identified
the assailant and the weapon of assault. In the cross-
examination also, this witness has remained consistent.
This Court is of the view that the presence of this
witness is natural as witness being mother and was
accompanied by the deceased daughter for household work
of collecting firewood and while returning, the incident
took place. Her version cannot be doubted.
PW No.3-Exh.14-Sahenazbibi in her deposition
stated that she also accompanied the informant and
deceased for household work of collecting firewood. She
has also narrated the manner in which the incident has
taken place. She has also identified the assailant. In
the cross-examination, she has deposed that upon hearing
commotion, she had reached the place and when she reached
the place, assailant had already fled. She has deposed
that it was the informant who had told her about the
incident. It appears that this witness may not be termed
to be an eyewitness and therefore, her evidence cannot be
considered to be supportive to the prosecution.
The evidence of the panch witness - PW No.1-
Exh.38-Iqbalsha Chimansha Diwan, who is the panch witness
of the discovery panchnama of knife has not, supported
the prosecution. Similarly, PW No.12-Exh.41-Firozkhan
Isubkhan Pathan has also not supported the case of the
prosecution. So far as these two witnesses are
concerned, signatures on the panchnama are identified by
them and contents of the panchnama are proved through the
evidence of Investigation Officer examined as PW No.21-
Exh.61. Perusal of the panchnama Exh.40 and his
deposition at Exh.61 clearly indicates that during the
course of investigation, panchnama was carried out in two
parts and that it led to discovery of weapon of assault
from a place shown by the accused. The discovery
panchnama was therefore proved satisfactorily by the
prosecution.
Perusal of the medical evidence in the form of
postmortem note-Exh.25 and the deposition of Doctor shows
the nature of injuries suffered on neck and chest. The
cause of death is also attributed to shock due to
hemorrhage due to injury to major vessels of neck. PW
No.6-Exh.23-Dr.Manish Vales, who has proved the
postmortem note, has also deposed that the injuries which
are received by the deceased could be caused by the
weapon of assault, i.e. muddamal article No.9 (knife).
The FSL report-Exh.67 shows that the pant of the deceased
which was seized during investigation and the panchnama
so proved by evidence of PW Nos.9 and 10 at Exhs.33 and
37 respectively, respectively shows presence of blood
group "AB". This blood group was found on the cloths of
the accused and appears to be the blood group of the
deceased. From the investigation and the FSL report, the
blood group of the accused appears to be "O". From knife
also, blood group "AB" was found present, clearly
establishing use of the weapon of assault in commission
of crime. The FSL report also indicates that the cut
marks on the cloths of the deceased were matching with
the edge of the knife-muddamal article No.9, which was
used for assault.
From the perusal of the judgment, it appears
that the Additional Sessions Judge has proceeded to
correctly appreciate the evidence on record and gave due
weightage to the version of the witness. This Court does
not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment,
calling for interference. This Court is, therefore, of
the view that upon perusal of the evidence on record, it
is a case of direct evidence in the form of eyewitness,
whose deposition, the Court has found to be reliable and
truthful. There is also corroboration in the form of
medical evidence and FSL evidence to establish the charge
beyond reasonable doubt.
Having gone through the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record of this case, this Court
is in agreement with the view taken by the Sessions
Court. Nothing has appeared on record to conclude that
the approach of the Sessions Court is vitiated by any
illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the
Sessions Court has ignored any material evidence while
recording the conviction. The findings arrived at by the
Sessions Court and the reasonings recorded for conviction
are justified in view of the evidence on record and
hence, no case is made out to entertain this appeal. The
appeal is dismissed.
R & P to be sent back to the concerned trial
Court.