Gujarat High Court
Hareshkumar Veerabhai Raval vs State Of Gujarat on 27 January, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1621 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
HARESHKUMAR VEERABHAI RAVAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MADANSINGH O BAROD(3128) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JAY MEHTA APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 27/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. This conviction appeal is filed by the appellant -
original accused, against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 14.07.2016, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
Sessions Case no. 27 of 2015, wherein, the appellant
came to be tried for offences punishable under
Sections 302, 324 and 449of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (old) ('IPC', for short). At the end of the trial, the
appellant came to be convicted and sentenced as
tabulated hereunder:
Conviction Sentence of Fine
under Section imprisonment
S.302 of IPC Life Rs.5000/-, in default
imprisonment to undergo 3 months
simple imprisonment
S.324 of IPC 3 years simple Rs.3000/-, in default
imprisonment to undergo 2 months
simple imprisonment
S.449 of IPC 10 years simple Rs.5000/-, in default
imprisonment to undergo 2 months
simple imprisonment
2. The case of the prosecution leading to conviction of
the appellants accused is as follows:
2.1 On 30.10.2014, FIR being I-C.R.No.143 of 2014, under
Sections 302, 449, 324 of the IPC was lodged at
Palanpur City Police Station, according to which, PW:1
Chandrika Panchal was present in her house at
Palanpur. The deceased Anjana being a daughter of
PW:1 along with her minor son Jignesh Panchal was
sitting next to her in the room. The accused Haresh
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
Raval - appellant had earlier abducted Anjana for
which PW:1 complainant had filed a case against them
for which, he was arrested and at the end of trial, he
had been acquitted by the Sessions Court concerned.
Keeping the grudge in the mind of the said criminal
proceedings, accused Haresh Raval at about 06:00
p.m. entered the PW:1's house situated in
Chanakyapuri Society, Palanpur and said that he
wanted to talk to Anjana. The PW:1 refused the
permission to talk as sought by the appellant accused.
The accused appellant suddenly grabbed the
deceased Anjana, who was sitting next to the
complainant in the room, by throat and took out the
sharp edge weapon gupti which he brought with him
and inflicted blow upon the deceased on her
abdomen. The accused Haresh Raval also attacked
and caused the injuries to the PW:1 on her upper and
lower part of the palm of her left hand when she
intervened. The appellant accused thereafter, started
hitting himself in this stomach with the same weapon
and fell on the floor. The injured Anjana rushed to the
Government Hospital, Palanpur. After primary
treatment at the government hospital, she was
referred to the Ahmedabad for further treatment
where she succumbed to her injuries on 31.10.2014.
The appellant accused severely injured by himself was
treated at the Government Hospital, Palanpur. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
motive behind the murder was love affair and after
their break-up, the deceased Anjana was engaged
with someone and her marriage was fixed. The
appellant accused was not happy with the said
relations, which led to the unfortunate incident.
2.2 After registration of the offence, the Investigating
Officer sent the dead body of the deceased for post-
morterm and recorded the statement of eyewitnesses,
took visit the place of incident and in presence of
independent witnesses, collected and obtained the
weapon gupti and blood sample for chemical analysis.
The I.O. arrested the accused and obtained the
medical certificate and sent the muddamal for
chemical analysis of FSL. In such circumstances, at the
end of investigation, the I.O. filed the chargesheet
against the appellant accused in the Court of
Magistrate for the offence of murder and causing
injuries to the complainant. The case was committed
to the Court of Sessions at Palanpur.
2.3 After due framing of charge and upon accused
pleading not guilty, the trial commenced before the
Sessions Court. In the course of the trial, the
prosecution examined in all 22 witnesses and
produced and proved the following documents:
Oral evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
PW 1 - Exh. 9 Chandrikaben Sureshbhai Panchal,
complainant
PW 2 - Exh. 19 Dr. Rekhaben Pratapkumar Kella, medical
officer
PW 3 - Exh. 24 Rameshji Sabdaji Thakor, panch witness
PW 4 - Exh. 27 Jigneshbhai Sureshbhai Panchal
PW 5 - Exh. 29 Ashokbhai Keshabhai Patani, panch witness
PW 6 - Exh. 32 Rameshji Babuji Thakor, panch witness
PW 7 - Exh. 33 Ajay Jakshibhai Majhirana, panch witness
PW 8 - Exh. 35 Sanjay Bajuji Thakor, panch witness
PW 9 - Exh. 38 Sanjaykumar Kanubhai Panchal, panch witness
PW 10- Exh. 40 Vinodbhai Shankarbhai Panchal, panch witness
PW 11- Exh. 41 Lalitkumar Keshavlal Panchal
PW 12- Exh. 42 Sardarbhai Jivanbhai Chauhan
PW 13- Exh. 43 Ramabhai Umabhai Gadhvi
PW 14- Exh. 44 Sureshkumar Rambhai Gadhvi
PW 15- Exh. 45 Sureshbhai Manilal Panchal
PW 16- Exh. 46 Dr. Purviben Sheetalgiri Goswami, medical
officer
PW 17- Exh. 51 Ashokbhai Cheljibhai
PW 18- Exh. 54 Pravinkumar Dungarbhai Rathod, Circle Officer
PW 19- Exh. 57 Shirishkumar Valjibhai Solanki, Police Station
Officer
PW 20- Exh. 62 Dr. Mahipal Tulsibhai, medical officer
PW 21- Exh. 64 Vasram Bhikhabhai Makwana, investigation
officer
PW 22- Exh. 66 Mukeshkumar Bachubhai Vyas, investigation
office
The prosecution also adduced following documentary
evidence:
Documentary evidence
Exh. 10 Complaint
Exh. 20 Medical certificate of deceased, injured, and accused
Exh. 21 Medical certificate of deceased Annabelle
Exh. 22 Injury certificate of Chandrikaben
Exh. 23 Injury certificate of accused Haresh
Exh. 25 Panchanama of scene of offence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
Exh. 26 Panch slips
Exh. 30 Panchanama of seizure of clothes of accused
Exh. 31 Panch slips
Exh. 34 Panchanama of physical examination of accused
Exh. 39 Inquest Panchanama
Exh. Receipt of handing over dead body
45/A
Exh. 47 Post-mortem report
Exh. 48 Police Yadi for post-mortem report
Exh. 49 Certificate of cause of death
Exh. 50 Police Yadi received by doctor for post-mortem note
Exh. 52 Dying declaration
Exh. 53 Police Yadi to Executive Magistrate for dying
declaration
Exh. 54 Yadi to prepare map of scene of offence
Exh. 56 Map of scene of offence
Exh. 58 Yadi for lodging FIR
Exh. 59 Suchipatra
Exh. 60 Special report for serious offence
Exh. 63 Medical certificate of accused Haresh by Civil Hospital,
Ahmedabad
Exh. 65 Police Yadi to medical officer for post-mortem report
Exh. 67 Police Yadi for obtaining medical certificate of accused
Haresh
Exh. 68 Application for No-Objection Certificate to obtain post-
mortem report
Exh. 69 Certificate
Exh. 70 Forwarding note
Exh. 71 FSL letter
Exh. 72 FSL report
Exh. 73 Serological report
Exh. 74 Yadi to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for medical
certificate of accused
Exh. 75 Yadi to Executive Magistrate for map of scene of
offence
Exh. 76 Report by FSL van, Palanpur
3. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
to which he stated that he was innocent of all charges
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
levelled and was falsely implicated in the serious
offence of murder.
4. Though opportunity was extended, no evidence was
tendered from the side of the appellant accused.
5. The learned Sessions Judge relying principally on the
deposition of PW:1, PW:4, PW:13, PW:14, PW:15, who
were witnesses of the incident and basing on the
deposition of PW:2 Doctor who had treated the
deceased and PW:16, who had conducted the
postmortem, found the appellant guilty of the charge
and was convicted and sentenced to suffer life
imprisonment.
6. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the
appellant has filed this appeal.
7. The learned counsel Mr. M.O.Barod, appearing for and
on behalf of the appellant-accused assails the
conviction and sentence and would urge that, the trial
court committed a serious error in holding the
appellant-accused guilty of an offence of murder. It is
on record that, the deceased and the appellant-
accused, prior to the incident, eloped and remained in
the company of each other for about one year which
proves their relations, however, the mother PW.1 was
against the relationship and did not permit the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
deceased to meet with the appellant-accused. In such
circumstances, on the day of incident, when the
appellant-accused asked the PW.1 to gave permission
to meet her, he was told by her to get out of the house
and in that process, the deceased herself attempted
to suicide and during the treatment, she succumbed
to her injuries and later on, the appellant-accused
tried to end his life hitting himself in the stomach with
the weapon. Thus, the testimony of PW.1 and PW.4,
alleging that the appellant was the author of the crime
cannot be believed and because of love affair, he had
been framed by the mother who was against the
relationship. Thus, the sole testimony of the mother
and her son PW.4, who are partisan and interested,
without corroboration, cannot be relied and act upon.
Alternatively, it was submitted that, the manner in
which the incident took place, the appellant-accused
did not have any intention to commit murder because,
the PW.1 was knowing that the appellant and
deceased were madly in love and despite of this fact,
she was engaged with someone and her marriage also
been fixed and the appellant-accused and deceased
had sworn to live together and die together. In such
circumstances, the accused did not have any intention
to commit murder and his conviction may be
converted and/or altered under Section 304 Part-I or II
of the IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
In the aforesaid contention, advanced by
learned counsel Mr. Barod, he has submitted that,
there being merits in the appeal and it may be
allowed and further prayed that, the judgment and
conviction and order of sentence under Section 302
be set aside and appellant may be acquitted of the
charges of murder and causing voluntary injuries to
PW.1.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Jay Mehta, learned APP for the
respondent-State vehemently opposed the appeal and
contended that, no error, not to speak of any error of
law could be said to have been committed by the
court below in holding the appellant guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 302, 324 and 449 of
the IPC; that the presence of the accused at the scene
of offence is established as he caused injuries to
himself and was taken to General Hospital, Palanpur
and thereafter, Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad and
before the Circle Officer, PW.10-Ashok Chelaji, he had
narrated the chronological events of the incident. The
deceased Anjana with whom the appellant was in love
had given history before PW.2 - Dr. Rekha Calla, that,
she was injured by the appellant-accused. The
witnesses PW.11 to 14 who were neighbours and after
hue and cry, they reached at the spot and noticed
that, the appellant was lying in full of blood at the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
scene of offence. The instrument - weapon was found
at the place. In such circumstances, the presence of
the accused at the place has been established and
proved. The PW.1 who received the injuries at the
hands of accused, had no reason to falsely implicate
the appellant and the theory of suicide as projected,
cannot be accepted. The accused was armed with
Gupti (a sharp weapon), entered into house of the
deceased and he was not called there for discussion
etc. and therefore, it could be inferred that, he was
hurt by the engagement of the deceased and in order
to stop the marriage, he inflicted a fatal blow on the
vital part of the body of the deceased and same has
been corroborated by the medical evidence on record.
Thus, therefore, Mr. Mehta, would urge that the
learned trial court on correct appreciation of the
evidence, has convicted the appellant-accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302. He therefore,
prays for the dismissal of the appeal.
9. Before adverting to the submissions, let us refer in
brief the evidence recorded by the trial court.
10. The prosecution case basically rests on the ocular
testimony of the PW.1 and PW.4 who are mother and
brother of the deceased.
11. PW.1 - Chandrikaben Panchal, in her testimony has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
stated that, on 30.10.2014 at about 6:00 p.m., she
along with deceased and her minor son PW.4, were
sitting in the house and at that time, the appellant
entered the house and said that, he wanted to talk
with the deceased Anjana who was sitting next to the
PW.1. The witness PW.1 when refused the appellant to
meet her, the accused suddenly grabbed the
deceased by throat and took out a sharp edge weapon
and given a blow on side of her stomach. The witness
has further stated that, when she intervened, the
appellant also hit her with the said weapon and
thereafter, due to hue and cry, the neighbours rushed
to her house and in their presence, the appellant-
accused started hitting himself in the stomach with
the said weapon and he fell there. The deceased
Anjana, to save herself, went to the house of PW.14
and thereafter, she was taken to Civil Hospital,
Palanpur and after taking a primary treatment, she
was referred to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad where she
breath her last. The witness also identified the weapon
and the accused in the court. In the cross-
examination, she has denied the theory of suicide
allegedly committed by her daughter. She has also
denied that, the accused did not inflict blow to the
deceased. She has also denied that, she gave
permission to the accused to meet the deceased at
her home. The witness has confessed that due to love
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
affair, the victim eloped with the accused and they
lived together for about one year. The PW.1 who had
lodged the FIR, also identified her signature put by her
in the complaint - Exh.10.
12. PW.4 - Jignesh Panchal, who is brother of the
deceased and at relevant time, he was present in the
room where the incident occurred. The witness PW.4
in his testimony gave a graphic version of the incident
and he stated in clear terms that the accused while
refusing by mother to meet Anjana, took out the sharp
weapon carried by him and inflicted a blow on the
stomach. The witness has further stated that, after
arrival of the neighbours, the accused himself caused
injuries with the said weapon. In the cross-
examination, the witness has admitted the facts that,
the deceased - her sister was in love with the
appellant-accused and in the year of 2012, she eloped
with the accused and remained in the company of
each other for about one year. The witness had denied
the suggestion that, Anjana committed suicide by
causing herself and while rescuing her, the PW.1 -
mother sustained injuries and in attempt to save her,
the appellant also sustained injuries.
13. PW.11 - Lalit Panchal, PW.12 - S.J. Chauhan, PW.13 -
Ramabhai Gadhvi, PW.14 - Suresh Gadhvi, PW.15 -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
Suresh Manilal - father of the deceased, were came
later on and they were not the witness of the incident.
However, so far as presence of the witnesses are
concerned, their evidence is material as in their
presence, the accused started hitting himself with the
sharp weapon. Thus, there is no need to refer their
evidence in detail.
14. PW.2 - Dr. Rekha Calla, was on duty as a Medical
Officer when the deceased and the accused brought
before her for treatment. The witness was serving as a
Medical Officer with Civil Hospital, Palanpur and before
her, the deceased Anjana stated that, she was injured
by the accused at her home. The PW.2 - Dr. after
examination of the deceased Anjana found the
following injuries:
(i) Incise wound on left hand at the base of
thumb. 3 cm X 1 cm X 0.5 cm bleeding;
(ii) incise wound on left ravel region anteriorly 3
cm X 1.5 cm X cavity deep oblique profuse
bleeding;
(iii) incise wound on left unal region posteriorly.
5 cm X 1.5 cm cavity deep profuse bleeding
The witness after seeing the weapon Gupti,
opined that, the injuries could be possible by this
weapon and same were likely to cause death. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
deceased Anjana was refereed by the doctor for
further treatment at Higher Centre, Ahmedabad.
On the same day, PW.2 - doctor treated and
examined the appellant-accused Haresh Raval and
found the following injuries on his body:
(i) incise wound on anterior aspect of neck,
transverse 6 cm X 2 cm X skin deep bleeding;
(ii) incise wound on anterior abdominal wall 2
cm below anbilias left to middle size 2 cm X 1
cm cavity deep.
Inter vines portering outside with inter vines
profuse bleeding.
The witness after seeing the weapon Gupti,
opined that, the injuries could be possible by this
weapon and same were likely to cause death. The
appellant Haresh Raval was referred by the doctor for
further treatment at Higher Center, Ahmedabad.
The PW.2 on the same day, treated and
examined PW.1 - Chandrikaben Raval and found the
injuries on her left forearm and it was in the nature of
incise wound diameter of 2 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm.
and according to Doctor, same could be possible with
the seized weapon.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
15. PW.16 - Dr. Purviben Goswami who had conducted the
post-mortem, noticed and noted in the PM Report
Exh.47 following external injuries on the body of the
deceased:
External injuries:
column no.17
(1) One oblique surgical suture wound goes
down wards laterally of size 5 cm present over
left side of front of abdomen which is 11 cm left
to midline It's upper and over lower costal
margin which is 13 cm below from lift nipple.
There are 4(four) white stitch present on
openings the stitch margins are sharp clean cut
and red in colour wound is 5 x 0.8 size and
found cavity dip. it's supramedial angle and
Inferolaternal angle are Acute.
(2) One vertical surgical suture wound of size 7
cm present over thenar area of left hand. Upper
end of wrist it. There are 3(three) white stitches
on opening stitches margins and sharp clean cut
and red in colour This wound is Incised wound of
7 x 0.5 x 1 cm sized.
(3) One oblique down wards laterally surgical
suture wound of size 9 cm present over (It) side
of back of abdomen, upper end is 3 cm left to
midline and 7 cm above from crent.
There are 6(six) white stitches on opening
sutures margins found sharp, clean cut, red in
colour and wound is 10 x 0.9 cm size and found
cavity dip it's suparomedial and inferolateral
angel are acute.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
(4) One oblique down wounds lateral Incised
wound size 1.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm present over
Palmer surface of middle Phalarix of lift 4th
finger which is red in colour. Margin are clean
cut and enerted.
(5) Transverse Incised wound of size 1 x 0.3 x
0.3 cm present over dorsum of (Rt) hand which
is 2 cm above Knuckle (Knuckle) of ... fingure
margin is red, clean cut and averted.
Internal injuries:
Column no.17 injury no.(1) going deeply in
abdominal cavity in above back wound and lateral
direction in the way it cuts skin S.C. tissues
muscles peritoneum and splear (6 X 0.8 X 1 cm)
Column no.17 injury no.(3) going deeply in
abdominal cavity in horizontal direction in the way
it cuts skin S.C. tissues muscles peritoneum (it)
perinephric area and left kidney (6 X 0.8 X 2 cm).
All structures in track of both wounds were
sharply cut and margins were red.
Both above injuries caused 1.5 lt of
Harmonitonum.
According to Doctor, the injuries found on the body of
the deceased are sufficient in ordinary course to cause the
death and it could be possible by the seized weapon and
the cause of death is shock and haemorrhage due to stab
injury over abdomen.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered their rival submissions made herein above
and also went through the record with utmost
circumspection.
17. In the case on hand, the prosecution case are rests on
the oral testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4, who are
mother and brother of the deceased Anjana. We have
carefully examined their testimonies and after through
examination of their evidence, we do not find that the
deceased herself by causing injury committed a
suicide. The PW-1 when intervene to protect the
deceased, she was heat by the appellant accused and
then after the appellant accused himself started
heating in the stomach with the weapon and fell there.
The theory of suicide and sustaining injuries by PW-1
by the accused and the appellant accused as
projected cannot be believable and prudently it would
not be possible by the deceased to cause the injury to
the witness as well as accused while she was in
process of committing suicide. The accused sustained
injuries on his neck as well as abdomen which was
found upto cavity deep. In such circumstances, the
theory of suicide as projected by the accused having
no any merits and considering the medical evidence
as well as evidence of eye witnesses, it is proved and
established that, the death of the deceased was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
homicidal in nature. The learned trial Court after
appreciation of the evidence, does committed any
error while holding that death of deceased Anjana was
homicidal in nature.
18. Now the next question would be whether the accused
appellant herein is the author of crime or not and the
learned trial Court is justified in convicting the
accused under Section 302 of the IPC.
19. The presence of appellant accused at the scene of
offence is not doubted as he himself has raised the
defense that, the deceased herself committed a
suicide by using deadly weapon and also tried to
cause injuries to him as well as her mother and
according to accused, due to love affair they promised
each other and live and die together. Even otherwise,
the neighbour who came later on after incident
namely PW-12, 13, 14 and 15, have categorically
stated in their testimonies that, appellant was lying at
the place of occurrence and had suffered injuries on
his stomach. The appellant accused while he was
taken to General Hospital, Palanpur, admitted before
the Doctor that, he sustained injuries by himself and
also disclosed before the Circle Officer PW-17 that how
and under what manner he received injuries on
30.10.2014. The appellant was treated at Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
Hospital, Ahmedabad and his treatment was continued
for about 12 days and the treating Doctor PW-20 has
produced the treatment case papers along with wound
certificate. In such circumstances, the prosecution has
proved and established the presence of the accused
by leading ample and credible evidence.
20. In order to prove the charge of murder, the
prosecution mainly relied on the testimonies of PW-1
and PW-4. Both the witnesses are related to the
deceased, as they are mother and brother of the
deceased. It is the contention of the appellant accused
that, the mother PW-1 had a motive to falsely
implicate the appellant as prior to the incident, she
lodged an FIR of kidnapping the deceased and
thereafter, the relationship was continued but
somehow the PW-1 was taking a strong objection and
she having reservation with the said relationship., the
accused was falsely involved by PW-1 and therefore,
in absence of any independent corroboration to the
evidence of witnesses, their evidence cannot be relied
and act upon. We have closely examined the evidence
of PW-1 and PW-4. It is no doubt true that, prior to the
incident, the accused and deceased because of their
relations, stayed together for about one year and the
mother PW-1, had lodged an FIR for kidnapping
against the appellant and at the end of trial, he has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
been acquitted. Even after the registration of FIR, the
deceased was not ready to reside with the parents
and that is why she had been sent to Nari Suraksha
Gruh. It is relevant to note that, after period of one
year, the deceased voluntarily left the company of the
accused and again came at her parents house and
since then, she was residing with the parents and
engaged with someone. It is in these background
facts, on close scrutiny of testimonies of two eye-
witnesses, nothing on brought on record to suggest
that due to earlier incident of kidnapping the
witnesses intentionally falsely implicate the accused in
a charge of murder. The manner in which the incident
took place, except the presence of two witnesses, no
one was present and therefore, their presence at the
place was natural one. The law on this regard is
settled by the Supreme Court. In case of Dilipsingh
and others Vs. State of Punjab, 1954 1 SCR 145,
it is observed that, ordinarily the close relatives would
be last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate
the innocent person. There is no proposition in law
that the relatives are to be treated as untrustful
witnesses. On the contrary, reasons has to be shown
when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the
witnesses has reason to shield the actual culprit and
falsely implicate the accused. In the case on hand,
only family members were the witness of the incident
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
and there was no scope for the neighbour to witness
the incident, as after hearing the shouting before they
reached at the scene of occurrence, the incident was
over. The incident took place on 30.10.2014. The
offence of kidnapping allegedly registered against the
appellant in the year 2012. In between, nothing
happened about the so called opposition raised by
PW-1 for maintaining relations. Thus, it could be
inferred that, deceased Anjana was not interested to
maintain further relations with the appellant accused
and that is why, she had left the company of the
accused and remained with her parents and with her
consent, she was engaged with someone. Thus, the
defense of keeping grudge or enmity towards the
accused by PW-1 is in real sense considering the
evidence on record, cannot be accepted. The
testimony of PW-1 gets corroboration from PW-4, who
was present at the place and before the trial Court, he
narrated the incident and during the cross-
examination also, his version is not shaken. Thus, the
presence of the witnesses at the place and their
version about the incident and act of the appellant
accused inspires confidence and there is nothing
inherently improbable and unreliable in their
evidence. Thus, after going through the oral
testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4, their evidence is clear,
cogent and credit worthy and found reliable.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
21. The findings recorded by the trial Court that the
appellant accused has caused death of Anjana by
inflicting fatal blow with sharp weapon Gupti. In this
regard, the counsel Mr. Barod urged that, offence was
not murder but may amount to culpable homicide not
amounting the murder. The plea was raised that, the
appellant and the deceased Anjana were madly in love
with each other and in the year 2012, they stayed
together for about one year and even after
registration of the offence of kidnapping against the
appellant accused, Anjana did not have given a
consent to live with the parents and opted to live in
Nari Shuraksha Gruh and due to said love affair, both
have promised each other to live and die together. In
such circumstances, it was submitted that there was
absence of intent to commit murder and the case
would fall under exception (4) to Section 300 of the
IPC, as in hit of passion upon sudden quarrel, the
incident has taken place.
22. In the case on hand, as per the medical evidence (PW-
2), there was a incise wound 3 cm X 1 cm cavity deep
in the abdomen and the second injury in the nature of
incise wound on left annal region in a diameter of 5
cm X 5 cm cavity deep. The PM doctor PW-16, in her
PM report Exh. 47, noted three incise wounds found
deeply in abdominal cavity and according to both the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
doctors, the injuries could be possible by sharp edged
Gupti and the injuries were sufficient in ordinary
course of nature to cause the death. The PM doctor
also opined that, the cause of death resulted from
multiple stab injuries. Admittedly, incident occurred
on 30.10.2014 at about 6-00 PM, and within 6 hours,
the deceased Anjana, died during the treatment at
Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The weapon Gupti found at
the place of occurrence.
23. In the case on hand, the appellant accused went to
the house of the deceased and that too with the sharp
edged weapon Gupti and when the PW-1 refused to
meet the victim the appellant accused, grabbed the
deceased from her neck and took out the weapon and
stabbed her at the vital part of the body. He also
inflicted blow to PW-1 when she intervened to save
the deceased. The weapon Gupti is the dangerous
weapon and the fatal blows were given at the
abdominal parts and according to medical evidence,
the injuries were found at the deep cavity, which led
to damage the critical organ. It is not the case of the
appellant accused that, there was no any intention on
his part to inflict the injuries on the abdomen and was
intended to caused injuries on some other parts of the
body. In such circumstances, we are of the
considered view in absence of any indication or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
circumstances to show that any particular injures
infected was accidental or unintentional and that
some other kind of injury was intended to be inflicted
the presumption would be that the very injury suffered
by the deceased was intended to kill. Thus, we do not
agree with the submission that there was absence to
intent to commit murder. The benefit of exception is
also not available to the appellant accused and as
nothing on record to show that the incident was result
of sudden fights without pre-meditation, and act of
done i heat of passion and the accused did not have
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
On the contrary the evidence shows that after hitting
the deceased, he caused the injuries to the PW-1
when she intervened to save her daughter.
24. For the foregoing reasons, when the injuries suffered
by the deceased Anjana found to be sufficient in
ordinary of nature to cause death and same was
intentionally inflicted by the appellant accused, the
act of the accused fall within clause thirdly and
fourthly of Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under:.
Section 300 : xxxxxx
Secondly, ............
Thirdly, : if it is done with intention of causing
bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1621/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of action to cause death or
Fourthly, - if the person committing the act
knows that, it is so imminently dangerous that
it must in all probability, cause death or such
bodily injury as it likely to cause death and
commit such an act, without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such
injuries as aforesaid.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussions, after analysis of
the evidence and impugned judgment of conviction,
we are satisfied that, prosecution has proved its case
with sufficient oral and documentary evidence,
beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellant was
the author of the crime and the trial Court has rightly
found the appellant accused guilty for act of murder
punishable under Sections 302 and Sections 324 and
449 of the IPC. We do not find any scope for
interference with the findings of conviction and
sentence recorded by the trial Court.
26. In the result, this conviction appeal deserves to be
dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and
sentence are upheld. R&P, if any, be sent back to the
trial Court forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
P.S. JOSHI
