Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kau @ Nirmal Gujrati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 2017
Author: Ashok Kumar Joshi
Bench: Ashok Kumar Joshi
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2007
Parties Name Kau @ Nirmal Gujarati and two others
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
Bench Constituted Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashok Kumar Joshi
Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele
Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting
Name of counsels for parties For appellants No. 1 and 2 : Shri S.C.
Datt, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate.
For appellant No.3: Shri Ajay Jain,
Advocate.
For respondent/State: Shri B.D. Singh,
Government Advocate.
Law laid down Significant paragraph numbers (J U D G M E N T) Pronounced on : 06.09.2017
1. Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 28.02.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No.03/2006 by the Court of Shri Anurag Shrivastava, Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal M.P. The trial Court held the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and awarded sentence of RI life alongwith fine amount of Rs.2000/- each. The Trial Court also held the
-:- 2 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC and awarded sentence of RI one year alongwith fine amount of Rs.500/- each.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that brother of the complainant namely Shivendra Bhadoriya had a mobile repairing shop at Bhopal. Four days before the incident, accused Kau @ Nirmal had got repaired his mobile. On the date of incident i.e. on 07.11.2005 at around 6.45 in the evening accused Kau @ Nirmal alongwith his companion Dinesh came to the shop. Complainant Digendra Singh and his father Chandrabhan were also standing outside of the shop. Accused Kau @ Nirmal and Dinesh entered in the shop and abused Shivendra. They had been complaining that why the mobile was not properly repaired. At that time, brother-in-law of the complainant namely Mukesh, who was a Constable at Vidisha, came there and tried to pacify the accused persons. In the meantime, the brother of accused Kau @ Nirmal also came there and accused Dinesh had inflicted a knife blow to Mukesh, which had hit at his chest. When the complainant Digendra tried to save Mukesh, accused Dinesh had inflicted a blow of knife to Digendra, which had hit at the thigh of his right leg. Thereafter, accused Vijay had taken out the knife from the hands of Dinesh and he had inflicted another blow to Mukesh. Thereafter, they ran away. Mukesh was taken to J.P. Hospital, and thereafter, to Hamidiya Hospital. An operation was performed
-:- 3 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
there. He died subsequently. The report of the incident (Ex.P/3) was lodged at the police station by the injured Digendra Singh. Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet. Accused persons abjured their guilt. The trial Court after trial found the appellants guilty for commission of aforementioned offences and awarded the sentence as mentioned above in the judgment.
3. The learned Senior Counsel has contended that the trial Court has committed an error of law in holding the appellants guilty for commission of the offence. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. In alternate, he has submitted that only Dinesh may be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC because the incident had occurred in a heat of passion without premeditation and the sentence of appellant-Dinesh be modified accordingly. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments:
A. Prabhakar Shankar Sawant and others vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1265;
B. Nyadar Singh vs Union of India and others, AIR 1988 SC 1979;
C. Jai Narain Mishra and others vs The State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 1764;
D. Yarasani Obulesu and Another v. State of A.P.,1995 supp (3) SCC 582 and E. Kashmira Singh vs The State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 1651.
-:- 4 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
4. Learned Government Advocate contended that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Presence of the appellants has been established on the spot. They have participated in the offence. Hence, the trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty for commission of offences and awarded a proper sentence.
5. The FIR of the incident was lodged by PW-3 Digendra Singh at 7:30 in the evening within an hour of happening of the incident. It is mentioned in the FIR that my brother Shivendra Bhadoriya has a mobile repairing shop at Ayodhyanagar, Bhopal.
The son of Nirmal Gujrati had left a mobile for repairing at the shop. It was returned back four days before the incident after repairing. However, the mobile was not working. Hence, Nirmal Gujrati and his companion Dinesh came at the shop and they abused my brother Shivendra. At that time, I was standing near the shop. My brother-in-law Mukesh Yadav also reached at the shop and we tried to pacify the accused persons. At that time, Dinesh had taken out a knife from his pocket and he had inflicted injury on the chest of my brother-in-law Mukesh Yadav. I tried to save him. He had also inflicted a blow of knife at my right leg.
6. PW-3 Digendra Singh is the injured witness. He deposed that deceased was his brother-in-law (Jija). On the date of incident i.e. on 07.11.2005 at around 6 to 7 O'clock in the
-:- 5 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
evening, I was at the mobile repairing shop of my brother Shivendra Singh. At that time, my father was also there. Accused Nirmal and Dinesh came at the shop and entered in the shop. There were heated exchange of words between Shivendra and Nirmal. They were abusing my brother Shivendra Singh. My brother-in-law Mukesh tried to pacify them and told them that why they were abusing, then the accused persons told him, not to come in between. At that time, Nirmal had said Dinesh to kill him. Then Dinesh had taken out a knife from his pocket and he had inflicted a blow, which had hit at the chest of the deceased. I tried to save the deceased, however, Dinesh had inflicted a blow to me, which had hit on my leg. Thereafter, Nirmal called his brother Vijay. Vijay had taken the knife from Dinesh and inflicted a knife blow at my brother-in-law Mukesh, which had hit on his chest. Then they ran away. My brother had taken the deceased to the hospital. Thereafter, I had gone to the police station and lodged the report. Police seized the cloths of my brother-in-law. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had gone alone at the police station. He denied the fact that his brother had told him that only one person had inflicted injury to the deceased. He further deposed that there was a 'ग ल गफ र' at the time of incident. He further deposed that he had told the police about the incident and police had registered the FIR. He had not read the FIR. The
-:- 6 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded at the hospital.
7. PW-6 K.S. Sisodiya deposed that he knows the deceased Mukesh. He was residing in my colony. He deposed that he came to know that there was a quarrel between Nirmal @ Kau and the brother-in-law of Mukesh. Mukesh tried to pacify the quarrel and in that event he had received injury by knife.
8. PW-9 Chandrabhan Singh deposed that I was at mobile repairing shop of my son on 07.11.2005. I and my elder son Divendra were standing outside of the shop. At that time, Dinesh and Kau came at the shop and they were abusing my son Shivendra. At that time, deceased Mukesh Yadav came there and Dinesh had inflicted a blow at the chest of the deceased-Mukesh Yadav. My elder son tried to save the deceased, then Dinesh had inflicted a blow at his leg. Accused Nirmal called his brother Vijay. Vijay had taken the knife from Dinesh and inflicted another blow at the chest of Mukesh and thereafter, the accused persons ran away. He admitted in his cross-examination that he had not gone to the police station to lodge the report. He further admitted the fact that the person who had inflicted the blow of knife was Dinesh, was told to him by his son and this fact has not been mentioned in his police statement.
-:- 7 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
9. PW-11 Shivendra Bhadoriya deposed that on 07.11.2005 at around 6-7 in the evening I was sitting in my shop. My farther Shri Chandrabhan Singh, my brother Digendra Pratap Singh Bhadoriya and the deceased Mukesh Yadav were there. At that time, accused Kau and Dinesh came at the shop and asked that why the mobile was not repaired properly and told me to again repair the mobile. Then I told them that I had repaired earlier and I will not repair the same second time. Thereafter, accused had abused me in filthy language. Listening abuses, my brother-in- law Mukesh came there and told accused Nirmal and Kau not to abuse me. Thereafter, Dinesh had called his brother Vijay. Vijay and Dinesh catch hold the deceased Mukesh Yadav and on instigation of Kau @ Nirmal, Dinesh had taken out a knife from his pocket and inflicted a blow at the chest of my brother-in-law/ deceased Mukesh. When my brother tried to save the deceased, Dinesh had inflicted a blow of knife at his right leg. Thereafter, Vijay had taken the knife from Dinesh and had inflicted another blow at the deceased, which had hit at his chest. Then, they ran away.
10. There are only three eye witness of the incident. PW-3 Digendra Singh is the injured eye witness. PW-9 is the father-in- law and PW-11 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. PW-3 Digendra Singh lodged the FIR.
-:- 8 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
11. Prosecution has examined total 15 witnesses. PW-1 Balram Singh Ginnare deposed that when he came at the shop, he had seen that the deceased was being taken on a motorbike to hospital. PW-2 Rajendra Singh Yadav is the brother of the deceased. He was not present on the spot. PW-4 Pradeep Chelani has been declared hostile. He simply deposed that there was 'ग ल गल च' at the shop, and Mukesh had caught Kau. PW-5 Ashok Kumar Chelani has also been declared hostile. He deposed that he reached at the shop and then his son told him that there was a quarrel with Shivendra and the deceased was taken to hospital. PW-6 K.S. Sisodiya is the neighbour of the deceased. He admitted his signature on safina form Ex.P-1 and panchayatnama of the body Ex.P-2. PW-7 Durvijay Singh is the Head Constable. He deposed that he was posted as Head Constable on 07.11.2005 at Police Station Piplani and the complainant Vijendra Singh lodged the FIR, which is Ex.P-3. He admitted his signature on Ex.P-3. PW-8 Rukum Pal Singh deposed that he was working at the relevant time as Senior Constable and he had taken the dead body of the deceased for postmortem.
12. PW-10 Dr. Prashant Jain deposed that he was posted as Senior Medical Health Officer on 07.11.2005 and he had examined injured Digendra and noticed one incised wound measuring 1 CM X 0.5 CM on right thigh and administered primary medicine. The injury was simple in nature.
-:- 9 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
13. PW-12 Badriprasad deposed that he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Piplani and he had registered the offence on the basis of the report and marg intimation Ex.P-19.
14. PW-14 Dr. Naveen Bhatia deposed that he was posted as Medical Officer at Jaiprakash Hospital on 07.11.2005. On that day, he had examined Mukesh Yadav. He noticed one stab wound on left side of the chest measuring 1x1/4 CM. He deposed that Shivendra told him that one person had inflicted a blow of knife.
15. PW-15- Dr. Ashok Sharma deposed that he was posted as Senior Forensic Specialist at Medicolegal Institute, Bhopal. He had performed postmortem on the body of the deceased and noticed following injuries on the person of the body of the deceased:
1. One stab wound on the left side of the chest area 1.7x0.3 CM. The injury was caused to right lung and parietal valve of the heart and depth of the injury was 6 CM.
2. One stab wound on the left side of the chest area 2 CM and depth of the injury was 12 CM.
Death of the deceased was caused due to aforesaid two injuries received by him. Injuries were caused by hard and sharp edged weapon.
16. PW-13 M.L. Pawar, Investigating Officer, deposed that he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector on 07.11.2005 at Police
-:- 10 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
Station Piplani. He had conducted investigation of Crime No.562/2005. He collected red blood from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P-11 and signed the same. He prepared spot map Ex.P-20 and signed the same. He recorded memorandum of accused Dinesh, which Ex.P-19, and signed the same and at his instance, seized a knife vide seizure memo Ex.P-10 and signed the same. He arrested accused Nirmal @ Kau vide arrest memo Ex.P-6 and signed the same. He also arrested accused Dinesh vide arrest memo Ex.P-7 and signed the same. He also arrested accused Vijay vide arrest memo Ex.P-8 and signed the same. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. He had recorded the statements of the witnesses Chandrabhan and Surendra Singh on 08.11.2005 vide Ex.D-2 and D-3. He also recorded statement of witness Pradeep Kumar vide Ex.P-5 on 08.11.2005 and signed the same.
17. There are three important witnesses of the occurrence of the incident. PW-3 Digendra Singh is the brother-in-law of the deceased, PW-9 Chandrabhan Singh is the father-in-law of the deceased: means father of the wife of the deceased and PW-11 Shivendra Bhadoriya is also brother-in-law of the deceased and real brother of PW-3. All these witnesses are related and interested witnesses. Their evidence has to be examined carefully as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raju @ Balachandran and others vs State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12
-:- 11 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
SCC 701. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has considered the categories of witnesses and one of the category of the witness is interested witness. The Witnesses who have interest in saying that the accused be punished and related, they are related and interested witnesses. Hence, all the three witnesses be categorized as related interested witnesses. The Apex Court in this regard has held as under:
"27. How the evidence of such a witness should be looked at was again considered in Darya Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1965 SC 328). This Court was of the opinion that a related or interested witness may not be hostile to the assailant, but if he is, then his evidence must be examined very carefully and all the infirmities taken into account. It was observed that where the witness shares the hostility of the victim against the assailant, it would be unlikely that he would not name the real assailant but would substitute the real assailant with the "enemy" of the victim. This is what this Court said:
"There can be no doubt that in a murder case when evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the murder is alleged to have been committed by the enemy of the family, criminal courts must examine the evidence of the interested witnesses, like the relatives of the victim, very carefully. But a person may be interested in the victim, being his relation or otherwise, and may not necessarily be hostile to the accused. In that case, the fact that the witness was related to the victim or was his friend, may not necessarily introduce any infirmity in his evidence. But where the witness is a close relation of the victim and is shown to share the victim's hostility to his assailant, that naturally makes it necessary for the criminal courts examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinise all the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it........ [I]t may be relevant to
-:- 12 -:-CRA No. 707 of 2007
remember that though the witness is hostile to the assailant, it is not likely that he would deliberately omit to name the real assailant and substitute in his place the name of the enemy of the family out of malice. The desire to punish the victim would be so powerful in his mind that he would unhesitatingly name the real assailant and would not think of substituting in his place the enemy of the family though he was not concerned with the assault. It is not improbable that in giving evidence, such a witness may name the real assailant and may add other persons out of malice and enmity and that is a factor which has to be borne in mind in appreciating the evidence of interested witnesses. On principle, however, it is difficult to accept the plea that if a witness is shown to be a relative of the deceased and it is also shown that he shared the hostility of the victim towards the assailant, his evidence can never be accepted unless it is corroborated on material particulars."
28. More recently, in Waman v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 7 SCC 295 this Court dealt with the case of a related witness (though not a witness inimical to the assailant) and while referring to and relying upon Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369, Balraje v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673, Prahlad Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 4 SCC 262, Israr v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2005) 9 SCC 616, S. Sudershan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 10 SCC 163, State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 and Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477 it was held:
"20. It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the courts have to scrutinise their evidence meticulously with a little care."
-:- 13 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
29. The sum and substance is that the evidence of a related or interested witness should be meticulously and carefully examined. In a case where the related and interested witness may have some enmity with the assailant, the bar would need to be raised and the evidence of the witness would have to be examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny. However, this is only a rule of prudence and not one of law, as held in Dalip Singh vs State of Punjab, (AIR 1953 SC 364) and pithily reiterated in Sarwan Singh vs State of Punjab, (AIR 1976 SC 2304) in the following words: -
"10..... The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration."
18. The principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in examining the evidence of related and interested witnesses is that "the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little care." Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth, such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration.
19. We would like to appreciate the evidence of aforesaid three witnesses keeping in mind the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accused Kau @ Nirmal and Vijay are the real brothers. PW-3 Digendra Singh lodged the FIR (Ex.P-3). It was lodged at 7:30 PM at the police station on the same day and the time of incident is 6:45 in the evening. It shows that the FIR
-:- 14 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
was lodged at the police station within a period of 45 minutes after happening of the incident. In the aforesaid FIR, it is mentioned that there was some dispute in regard to repairing of mobile. Accused persons Kau @ Nirmal and Dinesh had come on a motorbike at the shop and insisted that the mobile be repaired second time. The brother of the complainant refused the same and at that time, there was a hot-talk between them. Then deceased, who was the brother-in-law (jija) and was a Constable at Vidisha, came there and he tried to pacify the quarrel. At that time, Dinesh had taken out a knife and inflicted a blow to the deceased and when the complainant tried to save the deceased, accused Dinesh had inflicted a blow of knife on the thigh of right leg of the complainant. In the aforesaid FIR, there is no mention that Vijay had taken the knife from accused Dinesh and he had inflicted another blow at the deceased. This fact has come subsequently in the statement of PW-3 recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In para 9 of his cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that he did not read the FIR recorded by the police. However, he admitted that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded at the hospital. The aforesaid witness deposed before the Court that Vijay had come in the shop and he had taken the knife from Dinesh and had inflicted a blow to Mukesh. The same facts have been deposed by PW-9 Chandrabhan Singh, who is the father-in-law of the deceased and PW-11, who is also brother-in-
-:- 15 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
law of the deceased. PW-11 Shivendra Singh improved another fact that accused Dinesh and Vijay had catch hold the deceased and thereafter, another accused Kau @ Nirmal shouted to kill the deceased, thereafter, Dinesh had taken out a knife and had inflicted a blow at the deceased. PW-9 Chandrabhan Singh in his cross-examination admitted the fact that he did not tell the police in his statement that Dinesh had inflicted a blow by knife.
20. PW-14 Dr. Naveen Bhatia deposed that he had examined the deceased when he was brought to him and Shivendra had told him that one person had attacked the deceased. From perusal of the evidence of this witness and after perusal of the FIR, which was lodged by PW-3 within a period of 45 minutes of the incident, it is clear that the deceased was attacked by one person i.e. accused Dinesh. In order to implicate and rope the accused Vijay, who is the real brother of another co-accused Kau @ Nirmal, the story has been developed by the related and interested witnesses that Viajy had taken the knife from accused Dinesh and had inflicted another blow at the deceased. It is a fact that Vijay had not come on the spot alongwith other two accused persons. It is the story of the prosecution witnesses that initially accused Kau @ Nirmal and Dinesh and come on a motorbike at the shop for the purpose of repairing of mobile which was not repaired satisfactorily. It is said that Vijay was standing outside of the shop and he had entered the shop when another co-accused Kau
-:- 16 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
@ Nirmal had called him. In our opinion, the story has been developed by the interested witnesses in order to implicate appellant No.2 Vijay, who is the real brother of accused Kau @ Nirmal.
21. All the three witnesses i.e. PW-3, PW-9 and PW-11 have deposed that accused Kau @ Nirmal and Dinesh came on a motorbike at the shop of Shivendra Bhadoriya, who had a mobile repairing shop and they entered the shop and complained that mobile was not repaired properly earlier. Shivendra Bhadoriya told that he would not repair the mobile, thereafter, a quarrel had taken place. Deceased came at the place of incident to pacify the quarrel. This fact has been deposed by other prosecution witnesses PW-2 and PW-6 also. Hence, there was no pre plan of the accused persons to kill the deceased. The incident had happened on a heat of passion. Hence, it could not be said that the accused persons could be convicted with the aid of Section 34 of IPC because there was no common object and intention between the accused persons. On the basis of above analysis, in our opinion, the trial Court has committed an error of law in convicting the appellant No.1 Kau @ Nirmal Gujrati and appellant No.2 Vijay Gujrati.
22. Further, the question is that whether the act of the appellant No.3 Dinesh Gujrati amounts to murder or it would fall under
-:- 17 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
Section 304 Part I of IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.D. Khunte vs Union of India and others, (2015) 1 SCC 286 has held as under in this regard:
"12. What is critical for a case to fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC is that the provocation must not only be grave but sudden as well. It is only where the following ingredients of Exception 1 are satisfied that an accused can claim mitigation of the offence committed by him from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder:
(1) The deceased must have given provocation to the accused.
(2) The provocation so given must have been grave.
(3) The provocation given by the deceased must have been sudden.
(4) The offender by reason of such grave and sudden provocation must have been deprived of his power of self-control; and (5) The offender must have killed the deceased or any other person by mistake or accident during the continuance of the deprivation of the power of self-control.
13. Applying the above tests to the case at hand there is no gainsaying that an able bodied youthful Jawan when physically assaulted by his superior may be in a state of provocation. The gravity of such a provocation may be heightened if the physical beating was meant to force him to submit to unnatural carnal intercourse to satisfy the superior's lust. The store room incident involving the appellant and the deceased is alleged to have taken place when the deceased had bolted the door of the store room to keep out any intruder from seeing what was happening inside. By any standard the act of a superior to humiliate and force his subordinate in a closed room to succumb to the lustful design of the former was a potent recipe for anyone placed in the appellant's position to revolt and retaliate against the treatment being given to
-:- 18 -:-CRA No. 707 of 2007
him. What may have happened inside the store room if the appellant had indeed revolted and retaliated against the unbecoming conduct of the deceased is a matter of conjecture. The appellant or any one in his position may have retaliated violently to the grave peril of his tormentor. The fact of the matter, however, is that the appellant appears to have borne the assault without any retaliation against the deceased-superior and somehow managed to escape from the room. The critical moment when the appellant could perhaps loose his cool and equilibrium to take retaliatory action against the deceased was thus allowed to pass uneventfully, grave and sudden provocation for any such action notwithstanding.
14. All that the evidence proves is that after the said incident the appellant was seen crying and depressed and when asked by his colleagues he is said to have narrated his tale of humiliation at the hands of the deceased. There is no evidence to prove that after the incident aforementioned the appellant had continued to suffer a prolonged spell of grave provocation. By their nature such provocation even when sudden and grave cool off with passage of time often lapsing into what would become a motive for taking revenge whenever an opportunity arises. That appears to have happened in the present case also for the appellant's version is that he and his colleagues had planned to avenge the humiliation by beating up the deceased in the evening when they all assemble near the water heating point. That apart, the appellant attended to his normal duty during the day time and after the evening dinner, went to perform his guard duty at 2100 hrs. All these circumstances do not betray any signs of grave leave alone grave and sudden provocation to have continued haunting the appellant and disturbing his mental equilibrium or depriving him of self control that is an essential attribute of grave and sudden provocation to qualify as a mitigating factor under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC."
23. In the present case, the doctor who had conducted postmortem had noticed two injuries which could have been
-:- 19 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007
caused by the knife on the chest of the person of the deceased and the nature of the wounds shows that the accused had applied sufficient force. Apart from this, accused Dinesh also inflicted an injury to PW-3 Digendra Singh who tried to save the deceased. Hence, in our opinion, accused-Dinesh Gujrati has rightly been held guilty for commission of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Accused-Dinesh Gujrati has further rightly been held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC because he had caused injury to PW-3.
24. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant No.3-Dinesh Gujrati is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court to appellant No.3-Dinesh Gujrati is hereby upheld. The appeal filed by appellant No.1-Kau @ Nirmal Gujrati and appellant No.2-Vijay Gujrati is hereby allowed. They stands acquitted from the charges and their sentence are hereby set aside. Their sentences were suspended by this Court vide order dated 12.10.2007 and they are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged.
(S.K. Gangele) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge Judge
vkt
-:- 20 -:-
CRA No. 707 of 2007