HARISINGH M VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HARI SINGH M.VASAVA
STATE OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
Sethi, J. -
(1.)Actuated by jealously, infuriated on account of self-conceived notions of her infidelity and demonstrating the possessive nature of his mistress-keep Ubadiben Burabhai, the appellant committed an unusually usual crime of her murder. To quench his thirst of anger, he sprinkled the blood of the deceased all around by piercing her body with the knife he possessed by inflicting as many as 35 injuries on her person. The trial Court acquitted the appellant, apparently, on extraneous considerations and the appeal filed by the State was allowed vide the judgment impugned holding the appellant guilty for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment. He was also found guilty for the commission of offence under Section 452, I.P.C. but no separate sentence was awarded for that offence.
(2.)According to the prosecution, the deceased was a resident of Dadiapada, Navinagri where she had some houses. Complainant Saiyed Khan Majid Khan (PW 2) had taken one of the houses on rent from her, as he wanted to start factory at Dadiapada. The deceased was residing in another house nearby the house leased out to the complainant (PW 2). The appellant was stated to be the kept-husband of the deceased and both were living as husband and wife for the last 7-8 years. Two months prior to the date of occurrence, the apapellant is alleged to have attempted to kill the deceased with an axe for which the deceased had filed a complaint before the police. On 7-8-1984 when PW 2 was present at his house, the deceased went to his house and was sitting on the chair in front of the room of that house. Besides the complainant, two girls, namely, Nayana (PW 9) and Shruti (PW 10) of that locality were also there sitting on the cart. The deceased was informing the complainant not to allow the accused- appellant to take away anything from that house on any pretext. At about 11.30 a.m. on that day accused came in the house leased out to PW 2 and stood on the Otala and demanded his clothes from the deceased. When she told him that she was having his clothes, he got excited, pulled out a dagger from his waist and gave a blow with that dagger on the stomach of the deceased while she was sitting on the chair. After receiving the injury the deceased fell down and started crying. The persuations of PW 2 to stop the accused from commtting the crime had no effect and he gave repeated blows of his dagger on the body of Ubadiben, with the result she received 35 injuries on various parts of her body. Her clothes were stained with blood and she died on the spot. The accused ran away with his dagger. Yusufkhan Nurkhan and Abdul Razzak Akbar, are stated to have seen the accused running away from the house of the complainant with dagger. The complainant (PW 2) thereafter lodged the complaint Exhibit 8 before the police. After registration of the case, the police came on spot and drew the inquest Panchanama of the dead body of the deceased. Panchanama of the scene of occurrence and dead body was also prepared. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted on the following day. According to the prosecution the accused himself appeared before the police on 8-8-1984 along with the weapon of offence which was seized in presence of two Panch witnesses. The appellant was arrested and his blood stained clothes and dagger were seized vide Panchanama Exhibit 21.
(3.)After completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court. During the trial, out of three eye-witnesses only PW 2 supported the case of the prosecution. The two girls, namely, Nayana and Shuruti were declared hostile as they stated to have not seen the occurrence. In his statement, recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the accused denied to have committed any offence. He submitted that he did not cause any injury to the deceased and was being falsely involved in the present case. No evidence was led in defence.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.