STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL GEMARBHAI PUNJABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE of Gujarat has filed the present appeal under 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order of acquittal dated 27th September 1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Himatganar in Sessions Case No.20 of 1986, wherein the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to record acquittal of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 2nd October 1985, the present respondent- accused has beaten deceased- Virchandbhai Vithalbhai Patel and thereafter, has thrown away the deceased, by tying a handkerchief on the deceased's mouth, into a well at Village Bhanpur, Taluka Idar, District Banaskantha and thereby caused death of deceased- Virchandbhai Vithalbhai Patel. The complaint was filed by Dahyabhai Joitabhai, who happens to be cousin of the deceased. On the complaint being filed, the matter was investigated and the Police, on completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet. As the case was triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge on 3rd April 1991. The accused pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.

(2.) THE prosecution, to establish its case, examined nine witnesses as detailed hereunder: PW No. Name of witness Exhibit No. 1 Dahyabhai Vithalbhai Patel 12 2 Vithalbhai Hirabhai Patel 13 3 Dahyabhai Shivabhai Patel 14 4 Bhikhabhai Dhulabhai Patel 16 5 Dahyabhai Joitabhai 17 6 Arvindbhai Punjabhai Patel 19 7 Dr.Deven Govindbhai Desai 21 8 Purnanand Bhikhalal Upadhyay 25 9 Bhikhabhai Ramjibhai Chaudhary, PSI 28 Besides, the prosecution has also led necessary documentary evidence like Postmortem Note, Chemical Analyser's Report, etc. THE learned Judge after taking into consideration the evidence led before him and after considering the rival submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused, has recorded acquittal.

(3.) SO far as death of the deceased is concerned, it is not in dispute that it was an unnatural death. The deceased has met with an unnatural death. The injuries which are sustained by the deceased are mentioned in the postmortem note as well as in the deposition of Dr.Deven Govindbhai Desai, who is examined at PW-7, Exh.21. The injuries set out by Dr.Desai are in para 4. They are 19 in number so far as external injuries are concerned. Internal injuries are set out in para 5. The doctor has stated that all these injuries are found to be ante mortem in nature. The doctor has also stated that in his opinion the deceased has died due to shock as a result of hemorrhage from various injuries to the body. In para 6, the doctor has stated that the external injuries no.1 and 5 are possible by means of human nails, but other external injuries are not possible by fist and kicks. The doctor has opined that internal injuries are possible by fist and kicks. The doctor has also stated that if a person is thrown and/ or falls in a well, which is 75' deep with water level of 4', all such injuries are not possible at a time. The doctor has also opined that the internal injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the victim. Despite all what is stated by the doctor, the question remains as to whether there is sufficient evidence on record to connect the accused with the incident and whether the accused can be held responsible for death of the deceased.