Gujarat High Court
Umedbhai Parshottambhai Talpada vs State Of on 5 December, 2013
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
UMEDBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI TALPADA....Appellant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) R/CR.A/1530/2008 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1530 of 2008 With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1608 of 2008 With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1892 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ UMEDBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI TALPADA....Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: Cr.A.No.1530/08 MR ANIL S DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) MRS SHILPA R SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) MR VISHAL MEHTA, ADVOCE, for the Appellant MR HL JANI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s). Cr.A.No.1608/08 MR PRATIK BAROT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) MR HL JANI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s). Cr.A.No.1892/08 MR AY KOGJE, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) MR HL JANI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s). ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 05/12/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 29.4.08 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Sessions Case No.82/07. In all. four accused were charged with offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the four were convicted. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed Criminal Appeal No.1608 of 2008, accused No.3 has filed Criminal Appeal No.1892 of 2008 and accused No.4 has filed Criminal Appeal No.1530 of 2008.
Briefly stated, the prosecution version was that relation between the deceased and the side of the accused were strained for some time, since accused No.2, Maheshbhai Punambhai Talpada, suspected that Jasubhai was having illicit relations with his wife. On 7.8.06, at about 2 O clock in the afternoon, when Jasubhai was going towards his house on a bicycle, all the four accused, on account of the previous animosity surrounded him. Accused Nos.1 and 2 gave dharia blows on his head and on neck, accused No.3 was also carrying a dharia and accused No.4 was carrying a spear. Due to the injuries received, Jasubhai died on the spot. Charge to this effect was framed at Ex.5.
Rameshbhai Desaibhai Talpada, PW-12, Ex.37 had lodged the first information. He, however, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. In the FIR, Ex.60, it was stated that in the morning due to excessive rain, he was sitting at a road side hotel situated in his field run by one Ajmersingh Sardarji. He learnt about some quarrel having taken place in the village. He was preparing to go to the village to find out more details about the quarrel. By that time in the afternoon at about 2 O clock, his uncle s son Jasubhai Vihabhai Talpada, who also resided in the neighbourhood, left on his cycle to go to the village to get flour. After bringing the flour, near the house of Punambhai Ishwarbhai, accused No.1, he heard some noises. He, therefore, rushed towards the place and saw that Punambhai Ishwarbhai, accused No.1, Dhirubhai Punambhai, accused No.3 and Maheshbhai Punambhai, accused No.2, were carrying dharias and Umedbhai Parshottambhai, accused No.4 had a spear. These four were attacking the deceased. Punambhai Ishwarbhai gave a dharia blow on the left side neck of Jasubhai. Maheshbhai Punambhai gave a dharia blow on the jaw. Thereupon, Jasubhai fell on the road bleeding profusely. When he shouted, others from neighbourhood including Savabhai Amrabhai Talpada, Himatbhai Rupabhai Talpada, Babubhai Rupabhai Talpada and Arvindbvhai Savabhai Talpada arrived. According to him, this assault took place because of the cross complaints arising out of suspicion on the part of accused No.2, Maheshbhai Punambhai that Jasubhai had developed illicit relations with his wife.
The prosecution examined two eye-witnesses, one of them being Arvindbhai Savabhai, PW-13, Ex.38. He deposed that at about 2 O clock in the afternoon of 7.8.06, he was at his house situated near Kania Patiya. At that time, near the house of Punambhai Ishwarbhai, shouting was going on. He and his father Savabhai Amrabhai, Vinubhai Amrabhai and Desaibhai rushed towards the house of Punambhai. When they were about 50 steps away from the house, he saw that all the four accused had surrounded Jasubhai who had a bicycle in his hand. Abuses were being exchanged. Punambhai, Maheshbhai and Dhirubhai had dharias in their hands and Umedbhai was carrying a spear. Punambhai Ishwarbhai gave a dharia blow to Jasubhai on the left side of his neck. Maheshbhai Punambhai gave a dharia blow on the jaw near the neck. Once again, Maheshbhai gave another dharia blow to Jasubhai on his head, upon which Jasubhai fell down on the ground convulsing. At that time, Umedbhai Parshottambhai hit Jasubhai on his shoulder with a spear. When other people had gathered, all the four accused ran away in the fields. The incident took place because of the suspicion of Maheshbhai that Jasubhai had illicit relations with his wife.
He identified the muddamal articles 11, 7 and 14, dharias carried by the accused and muddamal article 17, a spear carried by accused no.4.
In the cross-examination, he agreed that besides the houses of his brothers and uncles, there are houses of other communities in the neighbourhood. Besides the hotel of Sardarji, there was a Government tubewell and a puncture repair shop at the spot. Though he denied in the police statement that he did not mention about Umedbhai giving spear blow, such contradiction has been taken through the deposition of the Investigation Officer.
Another eyewitness Naginbhai Vihabhai Talpada, PW-14, was examined at Ex.40. He is the brother of deceased Jasubhai. He deposed that he and Jasubhai had gone to the village to get flour. After returning, he got down near Dantali Patiya and proceeded on foot and Jasubhai carried on his bicycle towards their house. A little distance away, he saw that all the four accused surrounded Jasubhai. Punambhai Ishwarbhai gave a dharia blow on the left side of neck of Jasubhai, Maheshbhai Punambhai gave a dharia blow on the left cheek and another blow was given by Maheshbhai Punambhai on the head. Thereupon, his brother fell down. His uncles Arvindbhai Savabhai, Vinu Savabhai and Ramesh Desai came. Accused No.4 gave a blow with the spear. The incident happened because of the suspicion of illicit relations between the deceased and the wife of Maheshbhai. He also identified all four muddamal article weapons carried by each accused.
In the cross-examination, he stated that at Dantali Patiya, he got down to buy vegetables and that is how he and Jasubhai got separated. He stated that he was the first one to arrive at the scene of incident and not Arvind Savabhai. Though he denied that in his police statement he did not mention about accused No.4 giving spear blow, such contradiction has been brought through the evidence of Investigating Officer.
Dr.Kantibhai Chhanabhai Thakore, PW-15, Ex.43 had carried out the postmortem. He was the medical officer at the community health center, Dharmaj. In his deposition as well as in the postmortem report, Ex.45, he referred to the following external injuries:
(1) Huge incised wound on left side of neck which has cut whole neck at the level of C-U vertebra, head is attached to the body with a flap of skin and soft tissues to at side of neck.
Incised wound from lt. nostril which communicable with previous wound. Bone deep.
Lt. side of jaw bone is sharply incised, floor of the wound shows opened oropharynx.
9 cms long transverse incised wound across fronto-parietal region. Outer table is sharply incised along the length of the wound.
Hairs on head are sharply cut.
He had also noted fracture on fronto-parietal region. According to him, cause of death was due to incised wound on neck. He opined that most probable use of weapon was dharia.
He noted that all the injuries were ante-mortem and could be caused by muddamal articles 7, 11, and 14, i.e. dharia. Injuries Nos.1 to 4 were sufficient to cause death. Such injuries could be caused by using the sharp side of dharia with considerable force.
In the cross-examination, he agreed that none of the juries in the postmortem report could be caused by muddamal article No.17, spear. He did not agree that injury No.1 could be caused by a sword.
Rameshchandra Ishwarbhai Desai, PW-19, Ex.59 had carried out the investigation. He narrated the detail steps taken by him during the course of the investigation. In particular, he referred to the discoveries of murder weapons at the instance of the respective accused. Under panchnama Ex.63, dharia was discovered at the instance of Maheshhai Punambhai. Under panchnama Ex.64, dharias were recovered at the instance of Punambhai Ishwarbhai and Dhirubhai Punambhai. Under Ex.66, spear was discovered at the instance of accused No.4.
Various articles collected during the course of investigation were sent for forensic analysis. FSL report Ex.71 read with serological report Ex.72, established the presence of human blood from one of the dharias as also from the shirt of accused No.3 which was shown to be group A , that belonging to the deceased. From the spear, no blood, however, was found.
On the basis of such evidence, learned counsel Shri Pratik Barot for accused Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the charges against the said accused. In any case, it was not established which blow could be fatal. In absence of any prior meeting of mind, the accused cannot be convicted with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel Shri Kogje for accused No.3 submitted that presence of accused No.3 was doubtful. The witnesses were not reliable. In fact, soon after the incident, relatives of the deceased attacked accused No.3 when he was at home causing serious injuries for which criminal case is going on. In his submission, this would establish that accused No.3 was at home and not at the place of the incident when the incident happened.
In the alternative, he submitted that in any case, even as per the prosecution, accused No.3 did not give any blow with dharia. He had not committed any overt act. There was no prior meeting of minds. Common intention was, therefore, not established. Conviction of accused No.3 only because of his presence, in absence of any overt act was therefore not justified by applying the provisions of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He relied on the following decisions:
In the case of Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216, in which with respect to section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, following observations were made:
32. Now in the case of section 34 we think it is well established that a common intention presupposes prior concert. It requires a prearranged plan because before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of them all:-'Mahbub Shah v. Emperor', AIR 1945 PC 118 at pp. 120 and 121 (B).Accordingly there must have been a prior meeting of minds. Several persons can simultaneously attack a man and each can have the same intention, namely the intention to kill, and each can individually inflict a separate fatal blow and yet none would have the common intention required by the section because there was no prior meeting of minds to form a pre-arranged plan. In a case like that, each would be individually liable for whatever injury he caused but none could be vicariously convicted for the act of any of the others; and if the prosecution cannot prove that his separate blow was a fatal one he cannot be convicted of the murder however clearly an intention to kill could be proved in his case:AIR 1925 PC 1 at pp 5 and 6 (A) and AIR 1945 PC 118 (B). As their Lordships say in the latter case, "the partition which divides their bounds is often very thin : nevertheless, the distinction is real and substantial, and if overlooked will result in miscarriage of justice".
The plan need not be elaborate, nor is a long interval of time required. It could arise and be formed suddenly, as for example when one man calls on bystanders to help him kill a given individual and they, either by their words or their acts, indicate their assent to him and join him in the assault. There is then the necessary meeting of the minds. There is a pre-arranged plan however hastily formed and rudely conceived. But pre-arrangement there must be and premeditated concert. It is not enough, as in the latter Privy Council case, to have the same intention independently of each other, e. g., the intention to rescue another and, if necessary, to kill those who oppose.
In the case of Vithal Laxman Chalawadi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 173.
It was, however a case in which on facts and the nature of evidence, it was found that the appellant Gangappa had only given a chappal blow to the deceased and no overt act was attributed to him. The Supreme Court observed that he appears to have joined the melee when tempers ran high. The allegation that he exhorted accused 1 and 2 to kill the deceased was not proved. It was in this context, application of section 34 qua him was ruled out.
(3) In the case of Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2011 SC 840, in which finding that the weapons used in commission of the offence were implements commonly carried by the villagers and further looking to the nature of injuries, conviction of the accused persons was converted from that of section 302 to that of one under section 304 Part I of the IPC. This case was cited in the context of the fact that three of the four accused were allegedly carrying dharia which according to the counsel was a common agricultural instrument routinely carried by the villagers in rural areas.
Learned counsel Shri Vishal Mehta for accused No.4, in addition to adopting the contentions of other counsel, submitted that the version of eyewitness that accused No.4 gave blow to the deceased with a spear was falsified and was in conflict with the medical evidence. No blood was found from the spear. His conviction, therefore, be set aside.
On the other hand, learned APP Shri Jani opposed the appeals contending that through cogent and reliable evidence, charges against the accused were established. The intention was also clear. It is not always in every case that for application of section 34 prior meeting would be necessary. Such intention can develop even on the spur of the moment. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Sharma v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2004 SC 2294 in which the Court observed as under:
20.The section does not say "the common intention of all", nor does it say "and intention common to all". Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in Section 34, when an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. As was observed in Ch. Pulla Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1993 SC 1899). Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused.
We may appreciate the evidence on record. As noted, though the first informant turned hostile, we have two eyewitnesses on record. Arvindbhai Sava, PW-13, Ex.38, resided in the neighbourhood and was in fact relative of the deceased. He was at home in the afternoon on 7.8.2006 when he heard some shouts near the house of Punambhai Ishwarbhai. He, therefore, rushed to the spot in time enough to witness all four accused surrounding the deceased. Three of them were carrying dharias and 4th, accused No.4 had a spear. After a brief quarrel, first accused No.1 and thereafter accused No.2 gave dharia blows on the neck of Jasubhai. Accused No.2 gave yet another blow. He identified the weapons as those carried by the accused at the time of the incident.
His evidence is substantially in consonance with that of another eyewitness Naginbhai Vihabhai, PW-14, Ex.40. He is the real brother of deceased Jasubhai. On a bicycle, the two brothers had gone to the village to get flour. As per this witness, while coming back, Naginbhai got down to purchase vegetables and proceeded on foot. His brother carried on the bicycle. He saw from a little distance that all the four accused had surrounded his brother. Accused No.1 gave one dharia blow to the deceased and thereafter accused No.2 gave two blows. Jasubhai fell down and died.
Both the witnesses referred to some alleged illicit relations between the deceased and wife of accused No.2 as the cause for assault. It is true that Naginbhai, PW-14, claimed to have reached the place first and referred to others, namely, Rameshbhai Desai and Arvind Sava, PW-13 and others to have arrived at the scene 20 minutes later. This portion of his deposition cannot be seen in isolation. He was a village person, a rustic villager. In fact, the incident took place in a busy locality on the road of the village. It would be impossible to accept that for 20 minutes nobody came there. In his examination in chief, he had specifically stated that when his brother fell down, his uncle Arvind Sava, Vinubhai Sava, Ramesh Desai, etc. were coming from a little distance away. His reference to the arrival of some persons 20 minutes later must, therefore, not be given undue weight to discredit the otherwise reliable and believable evidence of Arvind Sava, PW-13, Ex.38, contrary to what was vehemently contended by learned counsel Shri Kogje for the accused. On all material facts, evidence of both the witnesses was consistent and in consonance with each other. Both referred to the four accused surrounding the deceased when he was proceeding on a bicycle going towards his house. After a brief quarrel, accused Nos.1 and 2 gave successive dharia blows to him. It is true that both these witnesses referred to a spear blow after the deceased fell down on the ground given by accused No.4. This was a material improvement from the police statement. This was also otherwise not supported by medical evidence. Dr.Kantibhai Thakore who conducted the postmortem was emphatic that none of the injuries recorded by him in the postmortem could be caused by spear. Merely because these witnesses attributed a blow by accused No.4 which he had not given would not convince us to discard their entire testimony only on that ground. Equally, merely because the witnesses were near relatives of the deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded without any reason, if otherwise found reliable and genuine and also supported by other evidence.
The injuries recorded by Dr.Kantibhai Thakore, PW-15, Ex.43 closely correspond to the blows described by two eyewitnesses. He had recorded four serious injuries on the neck and on the back side of the head. Such injuries, according to him, could have been caused by sharp cutting weapon like dharia. He clarified that if the sharp side of the dharia with considerable force is used, such injuries could be caused. He was emphatic that the injuries could not have been caused by a sword, ruling out the possibility of use of any such weapon.
Murder weapon, one of the dharias was discovered at the instance of accused No.2. The spear was discovered at the instance of accused No.4. Other two dharias were recovered from accused Nos.1 and 3. Forensic analysis further corroborates the prosecution version. Dharia carried by accused No.2 noticed blood. Shirt of accused No.3 also detected presence of human blood of the group belonging to the deceased.
Insofar as the alleged incident as deposed by the witness is concerned, we have no doubt that it did occur. Presence of accused Nos.3 and 4 was also established. The blood found from the shirt of accused No.3 is one more factor to convince us to accept the version of eyewitnesses about his presence. Merely because an hour later, allegedly some incident took place in the house of the said accused where he was stated to have been assaulted by the relatives of the deceased would not automatically mean that the evidence of the eyewitnesses about his presence at the time of the incident was false. Additionally, he did not explain in any manner the presence of blood of the group of the deceased on his shirt.
The only question, therefore, survives is whether the accused can be convicted with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. In essence, section 34 makes a departure from the common principle in criminal law of no vicarious liability. We are conscious that there is a distinction between common intention and common object. Common intention would require prior meeting of mind. It is, however, equally well settled that such meeting of minds can take place on the spur of the moment. By the very nature of things, direct evidence of common intention would not be available in most cases and would have to be culled out from the facts and circumstances established on record. In the case of M.A.Abdulla Kunhi v. State of Kerala, AIR 1991 SC 452, when it was found that one accused had rushed with a sword to attack the deceased but was obstructed by one of the prosecution witnesses, it was held that this fact itself was sufficient to show that he shared the common intention and therefore liable to be convicted under section 300 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the present case, the witnesses referred to the prior animosity between the deceased and the side of the accused. This was on account of the suspicion in their mind about the illicit relation the deceased had developed with the wife of accused No.2. This had resulted in cross cases being filed a year back. On the date of the incident, the deceased was returning home after collecting flour from the village on his bicycle when he was surrounded by all the four accused. Initially, abuses were exchanged and soon dharia blows were given by accused Nos.1 and 2. Though accused Nos.3 and 4 cannot be stated to have given any blows, they were present carrying dharia and spear respectively. The nature of blows given by accused Nos.1 and 2 clearly reveal their intention to cause death. Dharias were, as per the deposition of Dr.Kantibhai Thakore, used with considerable force. With the sharp side of the dharia, blows were given on vital parts of the body, i.e. the neck, on the jaw bone and on the back side of the head. Almost instantaneously the injured died.
In addition to accused Nos.1 and 2 exhibiting clear intention to cause death, the fact that accused Nos.3 and 4 shared such intention comes out from the following circumstances:
(i) The deceased were proceeding towards his home on his bicycle when he was intercepted by the accused. He was surrounded by all the four accused.
After a brief quarrel, when both sides abused each other, the attack started. First accused No.1 gave a dharia blow followed by successive dharia blows by accused No.2.
Presence of accused Nos.3 and 4 with their own weapons was established.
Even though we may believe that dharia being an agricultural implement is normally carried by villagers in the rural area, accused No.4 carrying a spear simply cannot be explained. It is a deadly weapon and is not used in any agricultural operations. The fact that accused No.4 was armed with spear more than sufficiently demonstrates the common intention of the group of accused who challenged the deceased and assaulted him on the date of the incident.
Under the circumstances, the other two accused though may not have been attributed any overt act cannot escape from the liability for the ultimate act of causing death of Jasubhai in view of the provisions contained in section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Sharma (supra), it is not always necessary that the accused charged with the aid of section 34 must have committed some overt act. What is of paramount consideration is the shared intention.
Under the circumstances, we find no error in the judgment and order of the Trial Court. All the appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
We are informed that accused Nos.3 and 4 are on bail. They shall have time upto 10th January, 2014 to surrender.
R & P to be transmitted to the Trial Court.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) vijayan Page 16 of 16