Gujarat High Court
Naran Bhikha Shiyani vs State Of Gujarat on 24 March, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 325 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 409 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 700 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
NARAN BHIKHA SHIYANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance in CR.A/325/2013:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
Ms DIPIKA P BAJPAI(8365) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in CR.A/409/2013 & 700/2013:
MR BHUNESH C RUPERA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NASIR SAIYED(6145) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MS SANDHYA D NATANI(3678) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 24/03/2025
Page 1 of 88
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025
undefined
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)
1. The Criminal Appeal No.325 of 2013 is filed by the appellant - Naran Bhikha Shiyani (original accused No.2) under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short "Cr.P.C.") against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar (hereinafter be referred to as "the Trial Court") in Sessions Case No.11 of 2009, whereby, the learned Judge has convicted the appellant accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of three months was imposed. However, the learned Judge has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
1.1 The Criminal Appeal No.409 of 2013 is filed by the appellant - Gordhanbhai Naranbhai Shiyani (original complainant) under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. challenging the very same judgment and order dated 06.12.2012 passed in the Sessions Case No.11 of 2009 acquitting the respondents accused (original accused Nos.2 and 3) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 read with Section 114 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act by giving benefit of doubt.
Page 2 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined 1.2 The Criminal Appeal No.700 of 2013 is filed by the appellant - Gordhanbhai Naranbhai Shiyani (original complainant) under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. challenging the very same judgment and order dated 06.12.2012 passed in the Sessions Case No.11 of 2009 acquitting the respondents accused (original accused Nos.1 and 4) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504 read with Section 114 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act by giving benefit of doubt.
2. Since all the criminal appeals arise from the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Sessions Case No.11 of 2009, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, one Premjibhai, brother of the complainant, had some altercations with the accused persons on account of the election of the Gram Panchayat and with an intention to cause death, on 23.06.2008, in village Mokar, Navapara area, the accused Naran Bhikha Shiyani and Dinesh Bhikha caused injury with knife. It is also the case of the prosecution that, the accused Bhikha Punja had caused injury by stick and during that period, the accused Mohan Bhikha, who had caught hold of the deceased Premjibhai, also used abusive language, and accordingly, in connivance with each other, the accused persons had committed offence for which, the complaint was filed before Ranavav Police Station.
Page 3 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined 3.1 On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, the First Information Report (FIR) being C.R.No.I-60/2008 came to be registered with Ranavav Police Station, Porbandar for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504, 114 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
3.2 After completion of investigation, as sufficient evidence was found, the police had arrested the accused persons and had filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Porbandar. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.11 of 2009.
3.3 On the basis of the material available on record, the Trial Court has framed the charge vide Exhibit 6 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and the same were explained to them. The accused have denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Porbandar.
3.4 Considering the evidence on record and after hearing the Page 4 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined respective parties, ultimately, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the original accused Nos.2 and 3 and awarded the sentence as stated above and acquitted the original accused Nos.1 and 4 for the aforesaid offences.
4. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses :-
: ORAL EVIDENCE :
Panch Witnesses :
Sr. Name of Witness Witness Exhibit
No. Number
1 Deposition of Khimjibhai Rambhai Odedra 1 11
2 Deposition of Lilabhai Kanjibhai Tunkadiya 2 13
3 Deposition of Lilabhai Arjanbhai Shiyani 3 14
4 Deposition of Kanjibhai Nathabhai 4 16
5 Deposition of Khimjibhai Mavabhai Shiyani 5 18
6 Deposition of Hemantbhai Najabhai Chavda 11 66
Prosecution Witnesses :
Sr. Name of Witness Witness Exhibit
No. Number
1 Deposition of Dr. Simaben Anandbhai 6 26
Popatiya (Medical Officer)
2 Deposition of Gordhanbhai Naranbhai 7 39
(Complainant- eye witness)
3 Deposition of Rajeshbhai Premjibhai (eye 8 50
witness)
4 Deposition of Premjibhai Nathabhai (eye 9 56
witness)
5 Deposition of Amrabhai Sajanbhai (eye 10 64
witness)
6 Deposition of Jaydeepsinh Harvijaysinh 12 71
Sarvaiya (Investigation Officer)
: Documentry Evidence :
Page 5 of 88
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025
undefined
Panchnamas :
Sr.No. Details Exhibit
1 Inquest Panchnama 12
2 Panchnama of offence place 15
3 Panchnama with regard to arrest of the accused 17
persons
4 Discovery Panchnama 19
5 Panchnama of blood sample taken of the deceased 21
and seized clothes
6 Panchnama with regard to blood sample taken of 22
the accused persons
Documents produced by Medical Officer :
1 Yadi received from Ranavav Police Station 27
2 Postmortem Form 28
3 Postmortem Note 29
Produced By Complainant :
1 Original Complaint 39-A
2 F.I.R. 40
Documents produced by Investigation Officer with regard to Investigation and F.S.L. :
Sr. Details Exhibit
No.
1 Abstract of Station Diary 65
2 True copy of Station Diary Entry No. 22/08 72
3 Report prepared by Kamlabaug Police Inspector 73
4 True copy of Station Diary Entry No. 21/08 74
5 Report made from P.S.O., Kamlabaug to A.S.I. 75
6 Report made from P.S.O., Kamlabaug to Ranavav 76
Police Station
7 True Copy of Ranavav Police Station Diary Entry 77
No. 14/08
8 Report made to register offence to Ranavav Police 78
Station
Page 6 of 88
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025
undefined
9 Yadi made by P.S.O. Ranavav 79
10 Yadi made to Executive Magistrate 80
11 Primary Report received from F.S.L. Mobile 81
12 Yadi made from PSO, Ranavav to Sub Inspector 82
13 Copy of V.H.F. Message 83-84
14 Yadi made to Medical Officer, Community Health 85
Centre
15 Yadi made to Revenue Circle Inspector to prepare 86
map of place of offence
16 Map of place of incident 87
17 Yadi forwarded from Bhavsinhji Hospital to Police 88
Sub-Inspector, Ranavav
18 Notification of Office of District Magistrate, 89
Porbandar
19 Copy of letter written to F.S.L. Officer, Junagadh 90
20 Note regarding Forwarded Muddamal 91
21 Letter written by F.S.L. Officer to Ranavav Sub 92
Inspector
22 Letter written by F.S.L. Officer to Ranavav Sub 93
Inspector
23 Analysis Report of F.S.L., Junagadh 94
24 Analysis Report with Forwarding letter of F.S.L., 95
Junagadh
25 Analysis Report received from F.S.L., Junagadh to 96
Ranavav Police Station
26 Letter received alongwith Serological Report to 97
Ranavav Police Station
27 Report of Serological Analysis 98
5. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been recorded wherein they denied having committed any offence and have stated that they are innocent.
6. After hearing both the sides and considering the evidence Page 7 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined on records, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2012 has convicted the accused as stated hereinabove.
7. Heard learned counsel Mr. Virat G. Popat, assisted by Ms. Dipika Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (original accused No.2) in Criminal Appeal No.325 of 2013, Mr. Bhunesh Rupera, learned counsel appearing for the appellant -
original complainant in Criminal Appeal Nos.409 and 700 of 2013, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State of Gujarat and Mr. Nasir Saiyed and Ms. Sandhya Natani, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents at length.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant :
8. So far as the Criminal Appeal No.325 of 2013 is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Popat for the appellant accused has submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in the alleged commission of crime as there are material contradictions in the depositions of the so called eye-
witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution and heavily relied upon by the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. He has submitted that in the initial version of the FIR, the complainant has stated that three knife blow were inflicted by the accused Nos.2 and 3, out of which one had inflicted on the back side of the deceased and another had inflicted on the chest and front side of the face of the deceased. He has Page 8 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined submitted that while perusing the Post Mortem report and the deposition of PW-6 - Dr. Seemaben Anandbhai Popatiyani at Exh.-26, the doctor has found seven injuries caused by knife and therefore, the witnesses, who have posed themselves as eye-witnesses, their depositions cannot be believed as their evidence are not trust-worthy and reliable and they were not telling the truth before the Court and thus, the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him as there are variance in the ocular versions and the medical evidence and therefore, under such circumstances, the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court for the alleged commission of crime. He has further submitted that there was no motive and it was in the hit of moment that the appellant got excited and inflicted the blow on the deceased and therefore, so far as the knowledge and intention are concerned, the same cannot be attributed against the appellant and he is entitled to get the benefit under Section 300 of the IPC that instead of conviction under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant could have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II.
8.1 Learned advocate Mr. Popat has submitted that looking to the evidence of the witnesses and the injuries received by the deceased, it can be seen that the accused persons have not acted in cruel and ghastly manner and the quarrel had cropped up from a very petty and small issue relating to cutting of trees and since the deceased and his sons were using abusive language and there was a hit of exchange and altercations and in a spur of moment, the accused got excited Page 9 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined and inflicted the blow and thus, there was no intention to kill the deceased as there was no premeditated or pre-planned assault made upon the deceased. He has further submitted that the incident had occurred due to some dispute between two groups during last elections and thus, it was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditated or intention to kill the deceased as the accused were not having knowledge that the deceased alongwith his two sons were passing through the place of occurrence on the day of incident and there was hot altercations took place on account of cutting of trees and therefore, intention or knowledge or even motive is absent in the present case. He has submitted that there is a discrepancy in the place of occurrence shown by the prosecution and therefore, considering the facts of the case and considering the evidence on record, the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charges under Section 302 of IPC and alternatively be punished under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
Submissions on behalf of the State :
9. Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent - State, has submitted that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present appeal and the same is required to be dismissed. She has submitted that the Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence and Page 10 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined also after considering the injuries caused to the deceased, which was referred and mentioned by PW-6 - Dr. Seemaben Anandbhai Popatiyani (Exh.-26). She has submitted that the said doctor P.W.6 has stated in her evidence that on 23.06.2008, when she was on duty at Bhavsinhji Civil Hospital as a medical officer, she had received the dead body of one Premjibhai Naranbhai Shiyani with police yaadi alongwith the copy of Inquest Panchnama and with panel doctor, she had performed the post mortem. Learned APP has submitted that the said doctor has also stated in the post mortem report that injuries given in column no.17 are correspondence to column no.18 and 19 and the said witness has also stated that the cause of death is due to serious injuries sustained on the vital part of the body of the deceased and due to excessive bleeding, the deceased has died. The said witness has also stated that all these injuries are sufficient to cause death of a person in a natural course and therefore, after considering the evidence of PW.6, the Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order thereby convicting the appellant accused who had inflicted the knife blows upon the deceased. She has further submitted that the injuries caused to the deceased are on the vital part of the body and with a great force and therefore, intention and knowledge can be attributed against the appellant accused safely and thus, the Trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC.
Page 11 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined 9.1 Learned APP Ms. Tripathi has submitted that so far as the depositions of eye-witnesses are concerned, if one of the witnesses has not stated that there were seven injuries while recording the FIR and merely there is discrepancies in the medical evidence and the FIR, it cannot be proved to be fatal and harm the case of the prosecution at all because, the FIR is merely a report under Section 154 for disclosing the cognizable offence and thereby police machinery is put into motion and not a descriptive but subjective statements are made in the FIR. It is not necessary that every time it is consistent with other evidence because, in the FIR full and complete details are not recorded, only the genesis and gist of the incident are recorded viz., the name of the accused and the role played by such accused ion the commission of the crime and therefore, under such circumstances, the contention raised by the learned advocate Mr. Popat is not tenable in the eye of law. Learned APP Ms. Tripathi has therefore, urged that the appeal, being devoid of any merits, be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence be confirmed.
9.2 Learned APP Ms. Tripathi has referred and relied upon the judgments referred and relied upon by the prosecution before the Trial court, which are as under :
[I] In case of Malot Somaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2012] Cri. Law Journal SC 402;
[II] In case of Prahlad Patel vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2011] 2 Crimes SC 53;
[III] In case of Sukhchandan Sing vs. State of Haryana & Ors., [2002] 2 SCC (Criminal) 961;Page 12 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined [IV] In case of Ramswarup vs. State of Rajasthan, [2009] 3 SCC (Criminal) 638;
[V] In case of Galivenkatay vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2009] 3 SCC (Criminal) 200;
[VI] In case of Govind Raju vs. State of Karnataka, [2010] 1 SCC (Criminal) 1342;
[VII] In case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Atul Singh and Ors., [2010] 1 SCC (Criminal) 1331;
[VIII] In case of Champaben Govindbhai vs. Popat Mani and Ors., [2010] 1 SCC (Criminal) 1179;
[IX] In case of Rajak Juneshab Karajgi and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, [2010] 1 SCC (Criminal) 1094;
[X] In case of Bhupendrasing and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2010] 1 SCC (Criminal) 275;
[XI] In case of Chhotani and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2009] 2 Crimes SC 139;
[XII] In case of Dhanojsing @ Shera and Ors. vs. State of Punjab, [2004] SCC 851.
Submissions on behalf of the Complainant :
10. So far as the Criminal Appeal Nos.409 of 2013 and 700 of 2013 filed by the original complainant are concerned, learned advocate Mr.Bhunesh Rupera, for the original complainant, has submitted that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record while acquitting the respondents (original accused Nos.2 and 3) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 read with Section 114 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and also original accused Nos.1 Page 13 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined and 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504 read with Section 114 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act by giving benefit of doubt. He has submitted that all the four accused have actively participated in the alleged commission of crime and have assaulted the deceased and also caused injuries to other witnesses and therefore, while passing the order of acquittal in favour of the accused persons, the Trial Court has committed a serious error by disbelieving the case of the prosecution and thus, the accused persons deserves to be convicted for the alleged offence. He has further submitted that all the three eye-witnesses had categorically and specifically stated the role of each of the accused and there is no material contradiction in their statements, in spite of that, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt for the alleged charges levelled against them, which is illegal, unjust and arbitrary and against the settled principles of law. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeals, learned advocate Mr. Rupera has urged that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused persons are required to be held guilty and required to be convicted for the charges levelled against them.
Analysis :
11. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record.
We have considered the submissions canvassed by both the sides and the evidence led by both the sides. Learned Page 14 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined advocate Mr. Popat has extraneously taken this Court through the contradictions and omissions and on perusal of the same, the issue arises for our determination, are as to whether the Trial Court has committed any perpetual illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned judgment and order, whether the Trial Court has committed any error of law while passing the impugned judgment and order, whether the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and recorded the demeanor and whether the Trial Court has appreciated the documentary evidence in its true and proper perspective.
12. On considering the rival submissions and while going through the detailed examination of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led before the Trial Court and referred by the Trial Court, we are considering the preliminary facts that whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and relying upon such facts, whether the Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order. In this context, first of all, we would like to refer to the evidence of PW-6 - Dr. Seemaben Anandbhai Popatiya. The prosecution has examined Dr. Seemaben Anandbhai Popatiya at Exh.26, who had proved the contents of the post-mortem report (Exh.-29). The post- mortem report reveals the following injuries :
Column 17 External injury marks.
(1) 5 cm X 3 cm incised wound 7 cm deep with clear cuts margins & Smooth, even edges Penetrating Straight into Rt Page 15 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined Plural Cavity cutting the Skin, intercostal muscles in 2 nd Space 3 cm away from Rt Strunal border. It is Spinddle Shaped & bleeding Present from Margins.
(2) Along the line of it. nipple in mid axillary line a 5cm X 3 cm incided wound 7 cm deep & Smooth, even edges & clean cut margins wedge Shaped Penetrating Obliquely upwards into left Plural Cavity cutting skin, & intercostal muscles with bleeding from margins & Cloted blood around.
(3) 10 cm left to the umbilicus 3 cm X 1.5 cm incised wound with clean cut margins & Smooth & even edges, Spindle shaped Penetrating Straight into abdominal - i.e. 7 cm deep cutting Skin, abdominal Wall muscles, Parital Peritoneum in the way bleeding from edges seen.
(4) 10 cm laterally to the above wound 3 cm X 1.5 cm incised wound wedge Shaped & Clean cut Margins & Smooth even edges - 10 cm deep & Swelling upper edge Penetrating obliquely upwards into abdominal Cavity.
- Bleeding Present from edges.
(5) At the upper apex of it axilla 3 cm X 1 cm incised wound 3 cm deep cutting skin & Subcutaneous tissue, Spindle Shaped with bleeding from edges.
(6) 2 cm from tip of it, shoulder on the left arm outer aspect 5 cm X 2 cm wedge shaped incised Wound & clean cut even edges cutting the skin, subcutaneous tissue & fiber of deltoied muscle.
Page 16 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined
- i.e. 5 cm deep bleeding from margins seen (7) On the Rt gulteal region outer side wedge Shaped 7 cm X 2 cm X 4 cm deep incided wound clean cut margins & Swelling in the upper edge going obliquely upwards bleeding from margins.
12.1 The said witness was cross-examined by the defence in detail, however, no sufficient material culled out from her cross-examination or brought out by the defence from cross-examination. The deposition of the said witness PW-6 is reproduced hereunder :
(1) When I was on duty as a Medical Officer at Bhavsinhji Hospital, Porbandar on 23/06/2008, I received a dead-body of a person namely Premajibhai Naranbhai Shiyani, age around 40 years, resident of Mokar Vala with the written yadi of Ranavav Police along with inquest panchnama and postmortem form with a request of autopsy from Dr. Vithi within panel. I have brought the said yadi and postmortem form along with me today, which are produced and assigned Exhibits 27 and 28 respectively.
(2) Inquest panchnama is produced vide Mark 5/13 and assigned Exhibit 12.
(3) I and Dr. Vipul Modha initiated the autopsy on the very same day, i.e. 23/06/2008 around 03:20 in the noon and it was completed 05:30 in the evening. A PM note having record of our proceedings was prepared. I and Dr. Modha signed and put the seal of our designation therein. This PM note is produced here vide Mark 5/27.
The same is written in my handwriting. I identify therein the signature of mine and Dr. Modha's and designation seals. I produce the same and it is assigned Exhibit 29.
(4) The dead-body brought to us for the autopsy was a male aged around 40 years he had worn ash grey colour shirt and ash grey colour pant with lining.
Page 17 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined The aforementioned clothes that he was wearing, were smeared with blood and were torn from nearly six places. The details thereof are mentioned in the column No. 8 in our postmortem report. The physique of the corpse was well-built and the corpse was cold. When we got the corpse for the purpose of the autopsy, a presence of Rigor Mortis was present on the part of head, neck, downside of the hand, on the shoulder etc. PM Lividity was seen on the open part of back side of the body. His eyes were semi-opened and mouth was closed. No liquid was not flowing from his nose, ear or mouth. No injury was found on his genitals. Both of his hands were on his chest, while both of his legs were straight. Fingers of hands were bent.
(5) The injuries, which can be seen with naked eyes, on the body were noted in the column No. 17 of our postmortem report. The same are as under :
(1) An incised wound was present on the right side of chest of the corpse which was around 5 cm x 3 cm and 7 cm vertical. Its margins were clean cut. Its edge was smooth and simple. It was spindle shaped and bleeding was present in the edge.
(2) An incised wound was present in the nipple line on the left side of chest of the corpse. It was 5 cm x 3 cm and 7 cm vertical. It was triconal shaped. It was deepening and heading upward towards left pleaural. It had clean cut margin. It had smooth and simple edge and bleeding was present therein. Blood was clotted around the injury.
(3) An incised wound measuring 3 cm x 1.5 cm was 10 cm away on the left side of navel, which was spindle shaped. It had clean cut margin and had smooth and simple edge. It was 7 cm deep and heading to the Peritoneal cavity, cutting the stomach muscles, its bleeding was present in edges.
(4) An incised wound was seen 10 cm left from the above mentioned wound. It was 3 cm x 1.5 cm in size and it was wedge shaped. It had clean cut margin and had smooth and simple edge. It was 10 cm deep. A bevelling was found on its upper edge and it was leading towards the abdominal cavity from upper side. Bleeding was present in the edge.
Page 18 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined (5) A 3 cm deep and 3 cm x 1 cm sized incised wound was present on the upper side of left armpit. It was spindle shaped and it was cutting skin and its lower part. Bleeding was present in the edge.
(6) A wedge shaped 5 cm x 2 cm sized incised wound was present 20 cm below from the left shoulder on the outer part of upperarm. It had clean cut margin and simple edge. It was 5 cm deep cutting the skin, its lower part and deltoid muscle and bleeding was present in the edge.
(7) A wedge shaped, 4 cm deep and 7 cm x 2 cm sized incised wound was seen on the outer part of right buttock. It had clean cut margin. A bevelling was on its upper edge and it was heading upwards. Bleeding was present in the edge.
No other injuries or clearly palpable fractures, except the mentioned above, were not found on the external part of the corpse. The aforementioned injuries were sustained before death of the deceased.
(6) When we-both doctors examined the internal part of the corpse together, skin below the head and part of the skull were normal, while the brain was pale. On examining the inner part of his chest, a wound, as a resultant injury of injury No. 1 mentioned in column No. 17 of the postmortem report, was found to have injured the right lung by cutting the pleura at a distance of 3 cm from the right sternal border and another internal muscles. Same way, as a resultant injury of injury No. 2 mentioned in column No. 17 of the postmortem report, a 5 cm transverse wound was found in the middle part of left armpit of the said corpse and it was causing injury on the upper part of the left lung by cutting the pleura. Around 5 cm sized incised wound was seen in the right lung membrane and it was cutting the left pleura around 5 cm. His trachea was pale. On examining both the chambers of the heart, it was shrunk. Therefore both the chambers were empty and his bigger artery was empty and pale. On examining his stomach walls, two incised wounds were found as a resultant injury of injury Nos. 3 and 4 mentioned in column No. 17 of the postmortem report. Among which, one wound with 3 cm x 0.5 cm size was heading to the abdominal cavity. Bleeding was present in the edge. They were extending upto the shallowness of the stomach cutting the stomach Page 19 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined muscles. Moreover, this injury was also cutting the layer of internal skin of the stomach. Upon examining the abdominal cavity, around one liter of blood was found clotted. Blood and muscles of his mouth, esophagus were pale, while his stomach was empty. On examining his small intestine, total three incised wound were found. They were 0.7 cm, 1 cm and 1.5 cm in size. They were at a distance of around one to one and a half feet from the junction of small intestine and large intestine. Feces mixed with gas was present in the large intestine. Moreover, there was also an injury in the joining part of skin and small intestine within the injury of aforementioned small intestine. In addition, his liver, spleen and kidneys were pale.
(7) While performing the autopsy, we did not collect viscera from the corpse, because we did not find it necessary. By considering the condition of internal organs and injuries found on the corpse, we were in a state to clearly declare the cause of death of the deceased. We have given the said reason in column No. 23 of our postmortem report. According to it, the deceased was died due to cardiac arrest caused due to hemorrhage due to serious injuries on the vital organs of his body. Injuries Nos. 1 to 4 among the injuries mentioned in column No. 17 of the postmortem report, that were seen on the corpse, were the injuries on the vital organs of the deceased. They could have been caused by any kind of sharp edged weapon. Moreover, these four injuries were responsible to cause death of the deceased. These injuries are such type of the injuries which can cause death of any person in a ordinary course of nature. Further, even if such an injured person gets immediate treatment, there is no chance of survival. While injuries Nos. 1 to 4 were of a serious type. Injuries Nos. 5 to 7 were of the ordinary injuries. Muddamal articles Nos. 18 and 19, i.e., knives, are being shown to me. On seeing them, I state that all the seven injuries mentioned in column No. 17 can be caused by both of these knives on the external part of the body. Considering the Rigor Mortis present on the corpse when we received the same, PM Lividity and the condition of other internal organs, the death of the deceased may have been caused within around 8 to 12 hours before we commenced the autopsy.
Page 20 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined It is true that, I have mentioned the injuries found on the body of the deceased in column No. 17 of the postmortem report. The said injuries are of three types i.e. spindle, wedge and V- shaped. I believe that, wedge shaped and V-shaped wound are of same type. So the aforementioned injuries are of two types instead of three types. And that are spindle shaped and V-shaped. It is true that, all the injuries found on the body of the deceased were such that may be caused by different types of weapons. If it is to be said that all the seven injuries found on the corpse can possibly be caused by a single type of weapon, it is not true. It is true that, a spindle shaped wound may be caused by weapon with sharp edges on both sides. It is not true that, V-shaped wound can only be caused by a weapon with three sharp edges. I have not seen any instrument like file tool used by a worker doing carpentry work. But it is not true that such file tool is V-shaped and if it is stabbed, than only a V-shaped wound can be caused. It is true that I have not mentioned as to how many angles were there in injury No. 2 found on the corpse. It is true that, a spindle shaped wound can be caused by any weapon having two sharp edges, but a spindle shaped wound cannot be caused with a weapon having a sharp edge on one side and blunt on another side. Muddamal article No. 18, i.e., knife, is being shown to me. On seeing it, I state that, said knife has sharp edge on one side and blunt on another side. It is also true that, same way, knife of Muddamal article No. 19 has sharp edge on one side and blunt on another side. It is true that among the wounds found on the corpse, the injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 5, they cannot be possible with the knives of Muddamal article Nos. 18 and 19, which are being shown to me at present. It is true that, a green colour like oil-paint is seen stuck on the knife of Muddamal article No. 19. It is true that, oil paint like yellowish colour all over the part of the handle that is made to grab the knife of Muddamal article No. 19. I do not agree with that the person who has used this knife, must have his hand smeared with colour by considering the above mentioned colour condition of the handle part of the handle of the weapon of Muddamal article No. 19. But I cannot say whether the holder or user of the said knife may get this colour stuck on his hand. I cannot see 4 different colour on the knife of Muddamal article No. 19 and I do not agree with the fact that there are 4 different colours. I do not have vision problem in my eyes. It is true that, there is a red colour spot on the knife of Muddamal article No.
19. But if the said spot is not bloodspot, I cannot state anything with regard to that. Either I do not agree with the fact and I cannot Page 21 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined state anything that the said knife, of Muddamal article No. 19, may have been used by a person working with a colour. It is true that, I have mentioned in my examination-in-chief that all the seven wounds, found on the corpse, can be caused by Muddamal article Nos. 18 and 19. But as of now, considering the state of injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 5, these three wounds do not seem to have been caused by those weapons and therefore, my opinion given in my examination-in-chief becomes false. It is true that, injuries Nos. 6 and 7 found on the corpse were V-shaped, i.e., wedge shaped, and they were simple wounds. It is true that, injuries Nos. 2 and 4 were also V-shaped, but they were not simple wounds. It is true that, when I was shown the Muddamal weapon during my examination- in-chief, I was aware that neither of them has three angles. It is true that, now, while I am being told by drawing my attention towards the edges of the knives with article Nos. 18 and 19, I am aware that none of these weapons has with three angles. It is not true that, as none of the weapon among the weapons seized in this case, is not V-shaped, I have falsely stated as this wound can be caused with single edged weapon.
It is true that, I have opined with regard to the time of the death of deceased that it may have taken place within eight to twelve hours and the opinion has only been given based on the Rigor Mortis seen on the corpse and the PM Lividity. It is true that when we received the corpse for the purpose of postmortem examination, the Rigor Mortis was seen in fully developed state on its whole part. It is true that, the Rigor Mortis starts after one or two hours from the death and it can be seen fully developing, i.e., developed from head to toe within twelve hours. And thereafter, this process stays in a fully developed condition for next twelve hours and it can be seen decreasing within next twelve hours. I rely on the Medical Jurisprudence by Modi for the opinion I have given with regard to the process of Rigor Mortis. My attention is drawn towards 21st edition of Jurisprudence by Modi. Dr. Modi has opined on page No. 229 therein that, he also agrees with the fact that the Rigor Mortis process completely develops on the body within 12 hours. But I say that, Modi has not opined this regarding any particular place and this issue depends upon the climate of that particular place, which affects the development of Rigor Mortis process. It is true that, I have not opined with regard to the time of the death of deceased in any column of the postmortem report. It is true that, investigating officer also did not seek my opinion with regard to time of the death of deceased. I am being shown Medical Jurisprudence by Parikh. It is opined on page Nos. 150 and 151 therein that, when Rigor Mortis on the body is completely Page 22 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined developed within 8 to 12 hours, it is in developed state for 12 to 24 hours and when it starts resolving after 24 hours, the time of the death may be 12 to 24 hours and I agree with that opinion, but that rule is not applicable in the present case. The opinion with regard to the time of the death of deceased, which I have given, is not only given based upon the Rigor Mortis process or PM Lividity, but it is given based upon the observations made by complete examination of the body.
My opinion about the time of the death of deceased was based upon the Rigor Mortis process, PM Lividity and decaying process. And it is true that, I did not found any decay in the corpse. I do not agree with the fact that, decaying usually starts after 36 hours of death. As per my opinion, the first phase of decaying usually starts within six to twelve hours of the death and this happens in the summer, while in winter, this stage takes one to three days. It is true that, in the postmortem report, I have not opined with regard to presence or absence of decaying process in the corpse found during the autopsy. It is true that, I have not opined with regard to the decaying process in the postmortem report and therefore it can be interpreted that, any presence or any initial phase of decaying process was not found at any place in the corpse during the autopsy. It is not true that, the opinion, which I have given, with regard to the time of the death of deceased as around 8 to 12 hours, is given without any kind of expertise.
It is true that, no other injuries were found except, the injuries are mentioned in column No. 17 in the postmortem report. The injuries, among the injuries found on the corpse, which I have shown as spindle shaped, can be caused by a GUPTI type weapon having sharp edges on both sides. It is true that, the V-shaped wound, I have shown on the corpse, can be caused with sword type weapon having a sharp edge on one side.
It is true that, if any corpse is brought to the Bhavsinhji Hospital, initially it is brought to the OPD department and at first, OPD case papers are prepared for the same. It is also true that, only the doctors on duty at that time, prepare the said OPD case papers. Name and details of the person who brought the corpse are mentioned in the OPD case papers. No separate register containing details of the corpse is maintained in the Civil Hospital. In the present case, I do not remember at present whether I was on duty Page 23 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined at the time when the corpse was brought to the hospital. Besides, I also do not remember now as to which doctor was on duty at that time when the death was declared. It is true that the injury mentioned in column No. 20 of the postmortem report, shown as a resultant injury of injury No. 1, which is mentioned in column No. 17 by both of us doctors together, is shown on the upper lobe of the right lung, but it is not mentioned therein the exact location or its measurement and size of the injury on the upper lobe. It is not true that, during the internal examination, exact location is also not mentioned of the injury which is shown as a resultant injury of internal injury shown in external injury column No. 17(2). But it is true that, we have not mentioned the measurement of that injury of internal part. It is true that, there are two separate divisions namely upper lobe and lower lobe and the third division is middle one. But I so not know whether there is sub division within it or not. It is not true that, muscles on the chest and stomach part are soft and simple. It is true that internal organs of the body have characteristics of elasticity by which they can get their original position after moving with the process of respiration. It is true that, muscles of the chest enjoining with them, also shrink and expand. It is true that, in case of attack on any person, chest muscles of the human body start shrinking and expanding and heart and lungs activity also increases. It is true that if any person is attacked with a weapon in such circumstances, it may possible that the injury might be deeper than the pressure created by the weapon. It is true that, the injuries Nos. 1 to 4, mentioned in column No. 17 and seen on the outer part of the body have clean cut margins and corners of those injuries were also smooth and had even edges. It is not necessary that, if an injury is caused with a weapon having one side sharp and another blunt, the corner of the injury must be clean cut from one side and blunt from another side.
It is true that, as the instruments for treatment of the patients having brain hemorrhage are not available at Bhavsinhji Hospital, Porbandar, the patients with such injury are referred to other hospitals. And as the instruments for treatment of patients with other kind of hemorrhage are available, they are treated. Now I state of this juncture that, a surgeon is required even to treat those patients, so we also refer them to other hospital. It is true that, management of hemorrhagic injuries of other part of the body except brain hemorrhage is possible where facility of cardiothoracic surgeon is available. In present case, the deceased had hemorrhagic injuries other than brain hemorrhage. It is true that, if a patient with hemorrhagic injuries, which are the same in quantum and nature as in the present case, reaches immediately Page 24 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined the hospital where all the instruments and facilities for his treatment are available, his injuries can be treated, and there may be a chance of survival.
No Cross-examination.
12.2 Thus, on perusal of the deposition of PW-6 and the nature of injures received by the deceased, it appears that out of seven injuries, four injuries are on the vital part of the body and all are exclusively and independently sufficient to cause death of a person in natural course, which is supported by the evidence of PW-7.
13. PW-7 - Gordhan Naranbhai (Exh.-39), being the brother of the deceased, who has categorically stated that on the day of incident at about 11.00 to 11.15 a.m. while he was passing through the place of incident, the deceased alongwith his wife and his son was standing near the flour mill of Deva Premji and at that time, Bhikha Raja, who being the Sarpanch of the village, alongwith his sons namely, Naran Bhikha, Dinesh Bhikha and Mohan Bhikha started using abusive language and took up quarrel that you are flying in air and immediately, Naran had brought out knife and inflicted a blow and thereafter, one after another, 6 to 7 knife blows were inflicted by Naran and Dinesh upon the deceased and accused Bhikha Raja had inflicted stick blows on the back of the deceased. The positioned of the said witness PW-7 is reproduced hereunder :
(1) I have been residing at Mokar village. My mobile number is 9428377274. We are four brothers. Bhanji, Gordhan and Premji are elder brothers. The incident took place about two years ago from today. The incident happened at around 11-11:15 hours in the Page 25 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined morning. When I and my sister-in-law Ratanben, as well as Premjibhai's son Raju, also Premji Natha and owner of the flour mill Devabhai Premji were standing next to the flour mill located at Navapura of Mokar village, at that time, my brother Premji was going from the flour mill towards the village. On the road, Sarpanch and his sons Bhikha Raja, Naran Bhikha, Mohan Bhikha and Dinesh Bhikha were cleaning. At that time, Naranbhai inflicted a knife blow to my brother Premjibhai in chest on saying that you have become arrogant and uttered abusive words. At that time, when he was to inflict second blow of knife, Mohan Bhikha caught hold of Premjibhai. Thereafter, Dinesh Bhikha took out knife from his collar and inflicted Premjibhai with blow of knife on the side of his back. At that time, When I, alongwith my sister-in-law Ratanben, Rajubhai, Devabhai and Premji Natha were going, Bhikha Raja hit blow of stick at Premjibhai's back. When we reached there, they were haphazardly inflicting six-seven blows of knife to Premjibhai. They were Dinesh Bhikha and Naran Bhikha who were hitting. When we reached there, those people ran away with sticks and knives.
Thereafter, we got Premjibhai seated on the raised platform and then took him to the Government Hospital at Porbander in Maruti. There, after examining, doctor stated that the case is failed. The body was kept in the P.M. room. Premjibhai had filed form to contest in the election to become Sarpanch before this incident took place. Premjibhai had acted as Sarpanch at Mokar village for about ten years. He was defeated in the last election. Keeping displeasure of this defeat in election, he discontinued having terms with us. Therefore, I did not go to village without any reason. I am being shown the Muddamal knife bearing Mark-R and S, that was used for the incident, upon looking at which I state that I cannot say whether it is the same knife or not, as I was at far distance during the incident. Clothes bearing Mark-B, which were worn by Premjibhai on the day of incident are shown to me, upon seeing those clothes of Muddamal, I state that he had worn these clothes on the day of incident. I am being shown original complaint from the court file, bearing my own signature, which is identified by me which is produced and given Exhibit-40. I was present at the dispensary when inquest panchnama was drawn. I was present when Panchnama of the local place was drawn. Today, the accused person are present today before the court. Complainant identifies the accused upon seeing them, wherein from among those sitting behind, 1-Bhikha Raja-2-Dinesh Bhikha-3-Mohan Bhikha-4-Naran Bhikha-thus, identifies them all. Police recorded my further reply after my complaint.
Page 26 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined (2) I have studied upto 4th -5th class. I know how to do signature and a little bit how to read and write. When I saw the incident, I did not decide that I have to conceal certain facts from the Police, and reveal certain facts to the Police. The incident has taken place in the manner which I have stated in this court, and not the other-way. It is not true that I lodged the complaint only on the basis of first getting knowledge about the incident. On getting to know new facts about the incident, my fresh statement was recorded in connection to it. It is true that after I lodged the complaint, I came to know fresh facts of the incident, which were not written in the complaint. Police read over the complaint to me. Police told me that this much facts have been noted in the complaint. Upon being read over the complaint to me by the police, it did not seem to me that police did not miss to write anything which was dictated by me, and nor did the police write anything which was not dictated by me. When the police read over the complaint to me, before signing, I did not say to police that some facts from these are deserved to be deleted and certain facts are required to be added afresh. Police gave me a copy of the complaint, but I do not remember where it is lying. I shall produce the copy of the complaint if I am granted time and it is found to me. After I was handed over copy of the complaint, I did not say to the police that changes are required in it.
(3) I do not remember any such fact that Police told me on taking me to the place of offence that as the place of offence does not match with that in the complaint, your fresh statement is required to be recorded. It is true that Police recorded my statement second time. It is true that when police recorded my second statement, facts which are not written in the complaint were written in the statement. When police recorded my statement for the second time, I did not ask the police that as I have already lodged the complaint, what is the need to record statement for the second time. Police told me that some other facts apart from those written in the complaint are required to be recorded and hence, it is required to record your statement second time. It is true that I have dictated only three blows of knife in the complaint. Similarly I have also dictated in my complaint as to who inflicted those knife blows in the complaint. I had seen the dead-body of my deceased brother in the Hospital. When I saw the dead body in the P.M. room, I comprehended that there are more than three blows on the body. When I saw about six to seven blows on the body, I understood that I need to convey this fact to the police. I had stated three blows of knife, but upon seeing the body, I came to know that there are more than three blows. I have not seen the J.C.B machine working Page 27 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined on the scene of offence at the day of incident. I also did not see such that the J.C.B machine was working, and it's driver and labourer were carrying out cleaning work. It is true that the flour- mill was closed about a year ago from the date of offence, therefore, it did not happen that I went to get the flour refined from the flour-mill. It is true that I do not reside at Mokar village. I have been residing in the sim of Marsa, where my land is situated and I have been residing there with my family. My field is situated on the left hand side on the road connecting Mokar village to Ranavav Porbander highway, i.e, in West direction. Nephew of the accused person, Mr. Rama Jiva's field is Opposite to my field. Going towards Porbander highway from my field, there is a coal factory situated on the left-side, but I do not know whether the tea -stall of Mohan, the accused is situated on the front portion of the factory. All the accused reside in field. The accused's field is situated opposite to my field, which is in the East direction. My field lies in the West inside after two farms on the Mokar-Porbander road. Earlier, I had a chhakdo-rickshaw, which I sold off about seven-eight years ago from today. During the incident I did not have any motorcycle. If we have to go to Muvadi from village, we get paddle rickshaw, but I did not go on foot. My field is at distance of about two and a half kilometres from the village. I happened to go to village, happen to come to the highway from village, happen to visit Ranavav, and to visit Porbander. We go to Mokar for shopping. I do not know the population of Mokar village, nor do I know how many cell phones and landline phones are there in village. I know that there is a Government Hospital, Police Station, and Taluka Panchayat Office in the village. At the time of incident, till I was present there, it did not happen that Ranavav Police was called, and Ranavav Police arrived there. I have no idea whether police arrived after I went away taking my brother from that place. Till date, I do not remember anybody saying that police arrived after we went away. I cannot state approximately how far is my village from Ranavav Police Station. Our village Mokar falls under the jurisdiction of Ranavav Police Station.
(4) It is true that Maruti car does not stay permanently in our village. Owner of this Maruti car was not residing in our village at the time of offence. Owner of this Maruti car has been residing at Khamdhrol. Khamdhrol is located next to Junagadh. Owner of Maruti car is not my relative. I don't know about any Panchnama for that Maruti Car drawn by the Police nor do I know about any blood sample collected from the car. It did not happen that police seized my clothes as well as clothes of my sister-in-law Ratanben, Premjibhai's son Raju, Premji Natha and owner of the flour mill Page 28 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined Deva Premji. On the day of incident, I went to Porbander in the clothes which were worn by me, and the same clothes were worn till the body of my brother arrived at the village. Similarly, all those written above by me had worn the same clothes which they had already worn till the body arrived. I took my brother to hospital at Porbander in Maruti car and took him inside the Hospital, and therefore, I do not remember that Police did not ask me as to why are your clothes not stained with blood after that. Raised platform may be about 125-150 steps away from the scene of offence. Premjibhai's house is situated there near this raised platform. Dahya Devji and Harilal Naran reside next to Premjibhai. Going towards my brother's house where the incident took place, residential houses are located nearby. Homes of my brother Dahya Naran and Purshottambhai are situated on the way. House of Dahyabhai is at a distance of about 125 steps from the place of offence and the raised platform stated by me is of Dahyabhai. Purshottambhai's home is at half-way. There are three yards near the place of offence. There is no shop on the way. There is a water tank far from the place of offence. Way to the village starts from the water tank. There is no shop near the place of offence. I have heard names of Kanji Khimji Tukadiya, Bhikha Jivraj and bhima Jivraj, Natha Karsan Tukadiya, Bhikha Arjan, Premji Natha and Natha Vashram. I have no idea that the road of water tank is thirty feet wide. Twenty feet away near this road, there is Modha Brahmin's delo for tying the animals. Modha Brahmin are fall under Bardai Brahmins and Tukadia Brahmin fall under Aboti Brahmin and I am a Aboti. Apart from Aboti, there live other Brahmins also in my village. It is true that all the panchas and witness in this case are of Aboti community. Apart from Brahmins, there are people from other castes also in my village. Mokar Bus Stand is situated at the outskirts of my village. On proceeding outwards from the road of water tank, bus stand is situated just at a small distance. There are twelve to fifteen shops in the village. I do not know that every Gram Panchayat has been given a Telephone connection of it's own. Purshottambhai Devji has no any grocery shop. There is no grocery shop opposite to the scene of offence. It is not true that there is a open grocery store opposite to the place of offence. It is true that opposite to the place of offence, there is no any grocery store at all. It is not true that in fact, grocery store is located opposite to the scene of offence in actual, but I have been tutored to deny the fact and hence, I falsely state that there is no grocery store. It is true that I am shown photographs in which there is a photograph of the accused persons alongwith my deceased brother. What I want to state is that they are my relatives, and hence, there would be many pictures of theirs together.
Page 29 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined (5) The election process might have taken place two years before the incident of my brother. When I filed the complaint, I did not give any description to the police nor did I mention that any specific incident had taken place between the two of them. When I filed the Police complaint, It was known to me as to which clothes my brother had worn at the time of the incident. I do not remember as to whether at the time of filing complaint, or when the fresh statement was recorded, I gave the details regarding which clothes my brother had worn. It is not that I gave it or not. When I saw my brother's body, I knew what kind of clothes my brother was wearing. It is true that I did not dictate in my complaint as well as in my statement that my brother was wearing pants, shirt, lengha, Jhabba or Pitamber on the day of the incident. It is not true that I saw my deceased brother for the first time in Porbandar Hospital on the day of the incident. My brother Bhanji has been residing in the sim of Gariyana. Neither I nor my family have any problem with my elder brother. I do not know whether Bhanji Bhai was at his house on the day of the incident. Bhanji Bhai's wife's name is Raji Ben. At the time of the incident, they had adult children, Shantiben, Vejiben, Narshibhai, and Nilesh. My brother Bhanji Bhai's family is not a witness in this case. Bhanji Bhai did not came to the village when the incident happened. According to me, Bhanji Bhai met us in the village in the evening. Dahyabhai was not in the village when the incident happened. I do not know where did Dahyabhai go on taking rickshaw when the incident happened. Dahyabhai parks the rickshaw at his house. The police did not ask me where Bhanjibhai and Dahyabhai were on the day of the incident. Dahyabhai met me in the evening of the day of the incident for the first time. I had discussed about the incident with Bhanjibhai and Dahyabhai, Police did not interrogate Dahyabhai.
(6) My wife's name is Devi Ben. On the day of the incident, I had five children over the age of 10 years. Who are Shantiben, Geetaben , Rajiben, Dinesh, Ramji. I have a farm which is irrigated and at that time I had harvested Groundnut crop. I work in my farm anytime in morning, afternoon or evening, as per the need. It is true that after sowing the seeds of groundnut, works like watering, removal of weeds, etc. are required to be carried out. It is true that on the day of the incident, I did not state the police as to at what time I went to the village to collect garbage. I also did not state the police as to why I went to the village. Similarly, I did not give the police the details as to why I, Ratanben, Raj, Premji Natha for being there at the time of incident. Similarly, I did not give any details to the police about how and why the five of us met there.
Page 30 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined (7) It is true that I did not give to police, the details as to at what time I left my house and in which vehicle did I left. Similarly, I did not give Police, the details regarding the work for which I left my house. At the day of incident, my wife and children did not know when I went to the village. What I am saying is that my wife knew about it. After the incident, I did not talk to my wife or son about the incident. I do not know whether Police recorded statement of my wife as to when I left the farm. The police did not come to my house to interrogate my wife or my children. It is not true that in fact I did not visit the scene of offence on the day of offence and therefore, did not tell the police any supporting facts regarding my presence at the scene of offence. It is not true that I was in my farm on the day of the incident and I went to the hospital when I came to know about the incident there, and hence, police did not record any statement from my family. It is not true that the police recorded the statements of Bhanji, Dahya and my wife Deviben but they are being deliberately kept away from the present case as they have falsified me regarding my presence and the incident. (8) This mobile is registered in my name. On the day of the incident, this mobile was with me. I do not know whether I spoke to anyone on my mobile before or after the incident. It did not happen that I was informed about the incident on my mobile. It did not happen that I was informed on my mobile When I was standing on the road and I sat in the vehicle in which my brother was being taken, and this way, I came to Porbandar Hospital with my brother's dead body. I have a mobile phone from about two years before the incident. I do not know that when we make a mobile call, the time and number of the caller as well as the duration conversation in seconds are recorded in the bill. I have not received my mobile phone bill yet. The police had not asked me the details of the phone number after taking print out in regard to the call records of my mobile. I do not remember to have called anyone from my mobile before the incident took place. I did not make any call after the incident, but when I was at Porbandar, I received two-three calls on my mobile, after which I switched it off. It is true that when I went to the scene of offence, I had carried mobile phone with me, I did not make any call from it in regard with the incident. It is not true that Page 31 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined the people in the vehicle in which my brother was being taken after he fell down, informed me on my mobile that your brother had been injured and is being taken to Porbandar. On that day, only I had a mobile phone in my house and my family members have mobile phones. My brother Dahyabhai does not have a mobile phone. Bhanji does not have a mobile phone, his son has a mobile phone. Nobody in Dahya bhai's house have a mobile phone. At the time of the incident, my brothers had four to five mobile phones. The police asked me about the mobile phone at the time of the incident. Police did not interrogate me about the call on my mobile phone. It is not true that first of all, I informed the police that I had received news about my brother's incident on my mobile and so I have come to Porbandar, that is why police wrote my mobile number in the complaint.
(9) When I went to the hospital with my brother, the doctor asked what has happened to your brother. It is not true that I told the doctor that I did not know anything. It is not true that I did not not give any information to the doctor as I knew nothing about this incident. It is true that I gave the doctor information that he had a dispute and therefore got injured during the dispute.
(10) It is not true that, any incident or sequence of events that I have written in the investigation did not take place at that time and in that place and in that manner. It is not true that I do not have any such mobile phone as written. It is not true that I falsely state that I was standing next to the flour-mill with the person written in the examination-in-chief. It is not true that I falsely state that during that time Premji was going towards the village from the flour mill and his sons, who is the Sarpanch, was doing cleaning work. It is not true that I falsely state that at that time Naranbhai inflicted a knife blow to my brother Premji on his chest saying that, " you have become very arrogant, and uttered abusive words." It is not true I falsely state that at that time, Mohan Bhikha caught hold of Premji Bhai when he was going and Dinesh Bhikha took out the knife and inflicted blow of knife to Premji on the side with a knife. It is not true that While the people whom I mentioned in my Examination-in-chief were going, during that time, Bhikha delivered a stick's blow to Premji on his chest and when we reached there, they were stabbing Premji six or seven times. And I falsely state that Dinesh, Bhikha and Naran were beating me. It is not true that I falsely state that when they reached the place, those people ran and away with a Page 32 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined knife and a stick. It is not true that I falsely state that Premjibhai was made to sit at the raised platform and after that, Premji Bhai was taken to the government hospital in Porbandar and the doctor there examined him and said that the case had failed. It is not true that I falsely state that before the incident that, due to the displeasure of losing election, Premji discontinued keeping terms and so, I did not go to the village unnecessarily. It is not true that I falsely state that, as I was far away, I could not identify whether there was a knife or not. It is not true that I have wrongly identified the clothes. It is not true that I was present in the hospital at the time of inquest panchnama. And I was present when panchnama of the local scene of offence was done. It is not true that I am falsely identifying my signature as mine despite being the signature similar person in the complaint. It is not true that I falsely state that the police recorded special statement after the incident.
(11) I am not habituated to state one fact repeatedly. In this case, it did not happen that police asked me once and I stated the same thing over three times. I understand the meaning of the word "further". After taking my 'special statement', police read over the answer to me. After that, the police stated what was written in my special statement. At that time, I did not raise objection that you did not wrote as I had dictated and you wrote what I had not dictated. If you give me to read my complaint and special statement, I can read it. It is not true that my complaint of Exh-39 has been written after comprehending and discussing it. It is not true that I did not dictate such a fact in my complaint that during that time my brother Premji was going towards the village from flour-mill. It is not true that I did not dictate in my complaint before the police that When Sarpanch and his sons Bhikha Raja, Naran Bhikha, Mohan Bhikha and Dinesh Bhikha were carrying road cleaning work that time, Naran Bhikha stabbed my brother Premjibhai on chest and stated that you've become arrogant and uttered abusive words, and at that time, when he was inflicting second blow of knife, Mohan Bhikha caught hold of Premji Bhai and Dinesh Bhikha took out a knife from his waist and a stabbed Premji Bhai while my sister-in-law Ratanben Raju Bhai, Deva Bhai and Premji Natha were going home. Meanwhile, Bhikha Raja hit Premji Bhai with a stick and when we reached there, Premji Bhai was a stabbed six or seven times and upon reaching the place, these people fled away with a knife and a stick. After that, we made Premji Bhai to sit on a raised platform and he was taken to the Porbandar Government Hospital in Maruti car. It did not happen that Premjibhai fell on the ground in a blood stained condition at the place of the incident and from there, we took him to the Page 33 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined Government Hospital. It is not true that I have dictated in my police complaint that Premji Bhai fell on the ground in a blood stained condition so that I and Premji Bhai's son Raj and Premji Natha and Deva Premji took him in a Maruti car of Bhikhu Natha Mokaria to Bhavsinh Hospital. As I was given to read my special statement, I read it and state that it is not dictated in it that Premjibhai was made to sit on the raised platform. It is true that my special statement was taken after the Inquest Panchnama. I was present when Panchnama of the dead body was drawn in the hospital. Inquest Panchnama is panchnama of the wounds and its location on the body. It is true that when the body was turned around during the inquest Panchnama, I came to know where the wounds were. It is true that I have dictated in my special statement that I came to know about the wounds when the dead body was turned around during Inquest panchnama. It is not true that I have dictated in my further reply before the police that this Premji Bhai's chest and side were excessively bleeding and therefore, we checked for the wound at the chest and side of the body and at the left armpit together and among the wounds, wound of chest and armpit side were dictated by me to have been stabbed by Naran Bhikha and When wound of the side was stated to be caused by Dinesh Bhikha. It is not true that the police have taken my signature on a blank piece of paper and subsequently, attached the text with my signature. It is not true that the sequence of events written in my name cannot be extended and hence, the sequence of events has been written in my name again and again.
(12) I know that it is dictated in the Panchnama that I had identified the dead body during the inquest panchnama and I was present in this panchnama. It is true that regarding my presence in Inquest panchnama, it is stated that Gordhan Naran Shiyali, age 45 years, resident of Mokar, Ranavav, states that this dead body belongs to his younger brother, Premji Naran Shiwali, age 40 years, resident of Mokar.
(13) During the inquest, the police came to the hospital but did interrogate me. It is not true that the police officer Mr. D.S. Vyas of Kamlabaugh Police Station came to the hospital and such did not happen that I did not tell him anything upon being questioned. It did not happen that we reached Bhavasinhji Hospital, at Porbandar and the Porbandar police came immediately. It is not true that Mr. Page 34 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined D.S. Vyas of Porbandar Police, who was at the hospital duty, interrogated all of us as we reached the hospital. After we reached the Porbandar Hospital with the body, the police came after an hour and a quarter. It is not true that the Porbandar police came at around 12.15 pm, that was after we reached the hospital. It is not true that when we reached Porbandar Hospital, Porbandar Police arrived, and questioned all of us and examined the dead body and reported it to the Mamlatdar. I saw this policeman in the hospital. When we reached the hospital, there were policemen there. When this policeman took the body away, he did not come to us. Similarly, I did not go to the policeman. After my brother was taken to the post mortem room, I was sitting at a little distance. I did not see the Porbandar Police coming to the PM room. It is not true that infact I did not go with the dead-body but I went directly to the hospital later on and therefore, I state that I have no information about the Porbandar Police. It is true that I did not inform anybody about the complaint which I lodged when I was present at the Hopsital before I filed the complaint. It is true that till we reached the hospital, it was not decided as to whom to show as an accused, which weapons to be shown and how to present this incident. I have seen that when I reached the scene of offence, my brother was lying on the ground in blood stained condition. I did not make any effort to ask my brother about the incident. I do not know whether the vehicle in which my brother was taken has been seized by the police or not. I know the accused of this case since birth, so I do not need to hide their names. After the police took my special statement, they did not record any other statement from me. It is not true that despite I did not see any incident and as I came to picture due to my brother's death, I lodged a false complaint in my name and stated false facts about the incident before the court. It is not true that I have testified before the court as I was tutored, and so have denied certain facts. It is not true that I am giving false testimony.
(14) It is not true that I do not know about the streets and alleys of the house of the deceased Premji Naran. The raised platform written by me in the examination-in-chief is about 20 feet away from Premjibhai's home. This is not the raised platform of Premji Bhai. This is the only place to sit in the entire street of Premji Bhai. It is true that going at a little distance from Premji Bhai's house, one should come to the right and go towards the village. And if one goes to the left, one should go towards Taka. It is true that a little Page 35 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined distance from Premji Bhai's house, there are streets opposite to each other. It is true that there is a street between Premji Bhai's house and Deva Bhai's flour-mill. It is not true that the accused were standing near the street on the day of the incident. It is true that the road work near the street was better. Now I state that at that time, no work was ongoing near the street. It is true that when the work was ongoing n near the street where the accused were standing, the deceased Premji Naranbhai went there and it is false that there was heated exchange of words. It is true that the incident happened near that street. The blood of the deceased was lying near the street since the incident took place there.
Question :- Did Premji Naran fell on the ground as the incident happened near the street ?
Answer :- Premji Bhai had fell down due to receiving injury on approaching the street, it is false.
If I am told that Premji Naran fell down due to receieving injury on approaching the street, it is false.
(15) The fact that I do not actually know where the incident took place is false. The fact that I am not aware of the location of the incident as I was not present at the scene of the offence is false. When the police recorded my statement, Panchnama of the local place was already drawn.
(16) I did not mention in my special statement that there was blood until 115 steps from the scene of the offence, nor did I mention in my special statement before the police that there was blood on the raised platform. I showed the scene of offence to the police. When the Panchnama of the scene of offence was being drawn, it did not come to my knowledge that there were scattered stains of blood till about 100 steps on the street leading to the house of the deceased Premji Naran. The fact came to my knowledge that there is a 15-feet-long and 20-inch cement raised platform. It is true that before the panchnama of the scene of offence was drawn, I knew about this raised platform. The deceased was made to sit on this raised platform, and thus, there were dried stains of blood on the platform. It was me who made Premjibhai sit at the raised platform. When he sat on the platform, he was unconscious. I did not tell the police that when we made him sit on the raised platform, he was not conscious. The police wiped the blood on the raised platform with their cloth and seized it.
Page 36 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined Question:- Till Date, have you dictated the police that a sample was taken by wiping the blood that was there on the raised platform with a cloth ?
Answer:- I did not state it.
(17) It is not true that in order to support the deposition of other witnesses, I am falsely stating about the blood lying on the raised platform.
(18) It is false that the village Sarpanch has to clean the village. It is true that Bhikhabhai was getting the road cleaned. The Gram Panchayat gets the road cleaned by the labourers. It is not true that at the time of incident cleaning of road was ongoing and the labourers were working. It is not true that JCB machine was also present there. It is not true that driver of JCB machine was present there.
(19) When I showed the place of incident to the police at that time we were standing beside the flour mill. It is true that during the panchnama of the local place, I have not dictated at which place I was standing beside the flour mill. It is true that if we are standing beside the flour mill, house of Premji Naran is not visible. Similarly, the lane is also not visible. Witness voluntarily states that none of the two lanes are visible. It is true that, similarly the raised platform also is not visible.
(20) It is not true that the first blow was inflicted when Premji Naran was sitting on the raised platform. And it is not true that on being inflicted the first blow on the raised platform, Premjibhai had come running on the road leading towards the village. And he fell down on the road and it is false that there was a bloodstain. The fact that the fatal blows were inflicted to Premjibhai on the raised platform is false. It is not true that deceased Premjibhai was lying on the road for long time hence proportionately there was a lot of blood. It is not true that I have shown the wrong place of incident, exhibit 15 to the police. It is not true that I have not seen the place of incident and hence I really do not know the place of incident.
(21) My clothes had been blood stained. I had worn these blood stained clothes till the cremation of Premjibhai. I do not know whether the police had seen this blood stained clothes or not. When I dictated the complaint in the hospital, I had worn the blood stained clothes. It is not true that when my further statement was recorded, I had worn the blood stained clothes. After the cremation, Page 37 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined I had taken a bath in the blood stained clothes, hence the blood stains were not visible. I do not know that when I lodged complaint, the police had instructed me not to wash the clothes and to keep them safe. I personally did not feel that as the blood stained clothes were important evidence to show my presence, I should not wash it. I do not know if anyone else's clothes were stained with blood or not. I do not know if I had seen the blood stained clothes of Rajubhai Premjibhai and Devabhai. It is not true that I do not know about whose clothes were bloodstained as I was not present at the place of incident.
(22) I do not know of how much time was taken to bring Premjibhai to the hospital at Porbandar from my home in the Maruti. I do not know whether it was Maruti fanti or another. But this car was such that it could accommodate five people. Premjibhai was seated on the backseat of the Maruti car. I lifted him, I do not know who else lifted him. I do not know that Raju had lifted him. Similarly, I do not know whether Devji or Premji Natha had lifted him or not. After placing the deceased Premjibhai in the Maruti Car, a lot of blood was coming out of his body. Premjibhai was seated on the support of the seat and two persons were seating down. The two persons who were sitting and holding him, were seated in the place where legs are kept in the Maruti car. These two persons - Raju and Premji Natha were sitting. I do not know whether the blood of Premji Naran had fallen on these two person. All four of us got Premji Naran out of the car at the hospital. I do not know that even after dropping him at the hospital, blood was coming out of the body of Premjibhai. I do not know that when we lifted Premjibhai with our hands and placed him in the stretcher at that time whether clothes of any four of us where stained with blood or not. I had lifted with hands hence my hands were stained with blood. I had washed my blood stained hands when I put my signature in the complaint. It is not true that when Premjibhai was taken to the hospital in the Maruti car, I had not gone with him. It is not true that on receiving the news, I had directly gone to the hospital. In the Maruti car, there was blood in the seat as well as below where Premjibhai was seated.
(23) It is not true that, I do not know of that place in Mokar village from where the deceased Premjibhai was made to sit in the Maruti Car. It is not true that therefore, in my complaint, I have not dictated the fact about the actual place from where Premjibhai was taken. I have dictated the fact in my complaint that ".... bleeding profusely, he had fallen down there on the ground, hence I, Raju - son of Premji Natha, Premji Natha and Deva Premji, brought him Page 38 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined here to Bhavansinhji Hospital in the car of Bhikha Natha..." It is true that I have not dictated in my complaint that, " We placed Premjibhai on the raised platform and brought him to Porbandar Government Hospital in the Maruti car." In my complaint I have dictated true fact that, I went in the village only when required and did not go in the village unnecessarily. I have not dictated the police that as to why I had gone in the Mokar village on the day of incident. There is my yard, hence I had gone to plant green vegetables. My yard is beside the flour mill. I had planted Cluster beans and lady finger in the vegetables. I had seeds with me, which were in the bag. I had a small spade to sow the seeds. The spade has a part to dig. I did not try to save Premjibhai with the weapon - spade, that I had with me when Premjibhai was being beaten with weapons. I did not go with the spade to the place where Premjibhai had fallen down. I had left the seeds and the spade in my yard. I did not show the seeds and the spade to the police in the panchnama of the place of incident. Till date, I have not dictated to the police that I had gone to plant the seeds.
(24) At that time, I was cleaning the yard to plant the seeds. Ratanben Dvanjibhai and Premji Natha as well as Raju Premji had seen me doing the cleaning in the yard. The cleaning of the yard lasted for approximately half an hour. Now I state that, Raju, Ratanben, all three of us were doing the cleaning. Owner of the flour mill - Devjibhai was standing beside. It is true that when the cleaning work of the yard was ongoing, the incident of Premji Naran took place. While working in the yard the place of incident is visible, but, the house of Premjibhai and the raised platform are not visible. Devabhai and Premji Natha were standing. It is true that the first time my attention was drawn there when I heard noise of the incident. It is not true that on hearing the voice of Premji Naran, 'don't beat' my attention went towards there. I had heard the voice saying you are showing arrogance. It is true that the place of incident is 70 to 80 feet away from the yard.
(25) The fact that I was sowing the seeds in the yard is known to Ratanben, Devjibhai, Premji Natha. All four of these know that I was doing the sowing work for half an hour.
At this stage the deposition is adjourned due to recess time.
Page 39 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined (26) When I was at the flour mill, at that time, I had no conversation with the deceased - Premjibhai. Premjibhai did not stand with me. It is true that, when I saw Premjibhai, he was walking on the road. It is not true that I do not know that as to from where did premjibhai come. It is true that Premjibhai was going towards the village from the flour mill. It is true that Premjibhai was coming from home. Premjibhai did not see towards the place where I was sowing the seeds. But I had seen towards Premjibhai. Premjibhai did not say to me that the opponent are doing illegal work, so let's go.
(27) My Brother - Premjibhai had acted as Sarpanch of Mokar village continuously for ten years. It is false that as a Sarpanch, my brother did not do any work for the people of Mokar village. It is false that Bhikhabhai had been elected as Sarpanch two years ago and during these two years, Bhikhabhai had got the work done of road of Mokar village. I do not know of the premanent roads that Bhikhabhai got built during these two years. I have seen the road of the Bazaar of Mokar village. It is made of concrete. It was built by Premjibhai. Bhikhabhai built a road of the outskirts. Bhikhabhai built the crematorium for Mokar Village. Similarly, the water pipeline was laid down by Bhikhabhai. It is not true that as Bhikhabhai had done many works of the village during two years, therefore we had animosity with Bhikhabhai. It is not true that my brother Premjibhai did not do the work of Mokar village, hence people of the village were angry and had animosity towards him. The fact that Bhikhabhai is doing good work for the village hence, I and my brother decided to implicate him in any criminal case, is not true. It is not true that despite the deceased Premjibhai being killed by someone else, to execute the above fact, Bhikhabhai was wrongly implicated.
(28) It is true that I have dictated in my complaint that Bhikha Raja had inflicted an ordinary stick blow on the back of Premjibhai. When I turned around and looked at the corpse of Premjibhai, at that time, I did not see any stick injury. In my complaint, I have not dictated such fact that Bhikhabhai inflicted ordinary blows on Premjibhai but I have dictated that stick blow was inflicted. I saw Premjibhai when he was hit by a stick. I do not know how far the stick was in the air from the body of Premjibhai and I saw it. I do not remember that when the stick hit the body of Premjibhai whether any blood had oozed out or not. I do not know whether any bruise or contusion had happened. I do not know if even at the time of inquest I had seen any bruise or contusion. I have seen Bhikhabhai inflict a blow to Premjibhai, I have not seen other blows. I do not Page 40 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined know if Bhikhabhai had inflicted more than one stick blow. I had seen Premjibhai was inflicted a stick blow in the left side on the back. I do not know that on being hit on the left side in the back, Premjibhai had fallen down. The stick blow was inflicted after inflicting three Knife blows. It is not true that by stating a false fact of the hitting a stick blow in the back, I am wrongly implicating Bhikhabhai.
(29) At the time of registering complaint, You have not dictated the fact about how Mohanbhai had held the deceased Premjibhai in his arms. It is not true that Mohanbhai held Premjibhai in the front of chest. It did not happen that he was standing at one place holding him. It is not true that Mohanbhai had held Premjibhai in such a way that Premjibhai could not move in any manner. It is true that when Mohanbhai had held Premjibhai at that time the stabbers inflicted the blows indiscriminately. It is true that Mohanbhai did not receive any single blow when the stabbers were inflicting the blows indiscriminately. Mohanbhai did not have any weapon with him. Mohanbhai has not inflicted any blow to Premjibhai with a knife or any other weapon. It is not true that Mohanbhai is wrongly implicated in this case by stating fact of holding in a wrong manner. It is not true as Mohanbhai is the son of current Sarpanch Bhikhabhai, he is falsely implicated. It did not happen that Premji Naran was killed with the same knife by just a single person.
(30) The fact that I do not know in which direction the attackers of Premjibhai had fled is false. In my examination-in-chief, I have dictated true fact that these people fled away with the knife and the stick. It is not true that as I was not present there, I do not know in which side the attackers went. It is not true that I have not witnessed the incident of this case and I am falsifying as an eye- witness. It is not true that I was not present at the time and place of incident. It is not true that as I am the brother of the deceased Premjibhai, I am falsifying as an eye-witness.
No re-examination.
13.1 Thus, the deposition of the said witness was consistent with the evidence of PW-6 Dr. Seemaben though in the FIR, the said witness had mentioned only three injuries, however, it does not mean that he had not seen the incident and therefore, his whole evidence cannot be brushed aside. So Page 41 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined far as the portion of oral evidence which supports the case of the prosecution and certainly referred and relied upon is concerned, in the present case, he cannot be considered as untrustworthy witness and therefore, his whole evidence cannot be brushed aside merely because of some omissions or any discrepancies. He was cross-examined by the defence at length, however, from his cross-examination, the defence was unable to bring out relevant material.
14. Considering the deposition of PW-8 - Rajesh Premji (Exh.-
50), being the son of the deceased, who was standing alongwith his father and mother and his uncle, he has also described the incident in detail and he was also cross- examined by the defence at length but, no useful material culled out by the defence. The deposition of the said witness is reproduced hereunder :
(1) I have been residing at Mokar. We are two brothers and two sisters. I am the eldest. Savita is younger than me, Satish is younger than her and Hetal is younger than him. I and my sister are married.
(2) The incident took place on 23/6/08. At that time, I was standing beside the flour mill situated in the Navapara area of Mokar Village. At that time, my elder uncle Gordhanbhai, my elder aunt Ratanben and Deva Premji and Premji Natha were standing. At that time, Sarpanch of our village was standing at some distance in the lane. Along with him his three sons - Naran Bhikha, Dinesh Bhikha and Mohan Bhikha were also standing and at that time my father - Premjibhai was going to village from our home. At that time, my father said to Bhikh Raja that although there are no trees on the road, he has cut them. At that time, taking out a knife from his nape, Naran Bhikha said that, you are being over smart and uttered abusive towards him. And at that time, Naran Bhikha Page 42 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined inflicted a serious knife blows in the chest to my father and inflicted the other knife blow to my father in the left armpit. And at that time as my father tried to grab the knife, Mohan Bhikha held my father.
During that time, Dinesh Bhikha took out a knife from his nape and inflicted a knife blow to my father on the left side and after that, three - four blows were inflicted to my dad by Naran Bhikha and Dinesh Bhikha. During that time, Bhikha Raja inflicted a hockey blow on the back of my father and at that time, I, my elder uncle Gordhanbhai, my elder aunt Ratanben, Premji Natha and Deva Premji ran towards that place, hence the accused fled away in the lane and Cap and Turban of Bhikha Raja and Slipper of Dinesh Bhika were left behind at the place of incident. Therefore, we took my father from there and placed him on a raised platform near our home. I and my elder uncle Gordhanbhai, Premji Natha, Deva Premji helped my father to sit on the raised platform and my father was taken to Bhavansinhji Hospital from there in the Maruti fanti car of Bhikhu Natha. On reaching there, the on duty doctor said that it is a failed case. Thereafter, corpse of my father was kept in the P.M. room. Upon arrival of Ranavav Police, my elder uncle Gordhanbhai registered his complaint. I have eye-witnessed this incident.
(3) The reason of this incident is that my father had filled the form to contest the Sarpanch election against the Sarpanch candidate Bhika Raja. My father lost this election. Bhikha Raja and all his three sons kept a grudge regarding it. Naran Bhikha as well as Dinesh Bhikha stabbed indiscriminately. Mohan Bhikha held him. Bhikha Raja inflicted a hockey blow. All these four people together murdered my father.
(4) Muddamal article R and S - knives are shown to me. On seeing them, I dictate that I was far away so at present I cannot identify whether they were the same knives which were there at the time of incident. But on seeing it from a distance, the knives were similar to these. I am shown muddamal article mark M - Hockey. On seeing it I dictate that this hockey was there during the incident. I am shown muddamal article mark E - cap as well as mark - G footwear, mark F - Turban. On seeing this muddamal I dictate that they belonged to accused at the time of incident. On seeing muddamal article B, I dictate that these are the same clothes that were worn by my father at the time of the incident. I identify the accused. They are present in the court today. From the right side, I identify the accused Bhikha Raja, Dinesh Bhikha, Mohan Bhikha, Naran Bhikha. Police inquired me with regard to the incident and recorded my statement.
Page 43 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined (5) It is true that I have my own mobile. It is false that I had my mobile with me on the day of incident. It is true that when the police inquired me regarding the incident, at that time I have dictated my mobile number as 94272 85043. The fact that I dictated mobile number is true. It is true that this mobile was not with me at that time. According to me, this mobile was at my home at that time. I have been using this mobile from two years before the incident. I do not know that detail regarding who was called and at what time the call was made come in the mobile details in the bill. I do not have mobile billing system but I do the recharge. I do not know that the tower of the place where the mobile is used is shown in the incoming and outgoing. The mobile was with me in the night before the incident. When I left the house in the morning at that time my mobile was left at my house. I had made and received two three calls in the night before the incident, but at present I do not remember as to whose they are. In the morning on the day of incident, no call was received on my mobile nor did I make any call. It is true that I have not used my mobile on the day of incident. It is true that till date I do not know if any phone was received on my mobile after I left my home in the morning on the day of incident. Police has not asked me any question regarding the use of mobile. After the incident of my farther happened, I did feel appropriate to use this mobile to message anyone because there was no such time. Till date I have not checked the incoming numbers on my phone after I returned home after the incident of my father. I do not remember that my elder uncle Gordhanbhai had called me on this mobile number on the day of incident and no call was received. It did not happen that I had called my elder uncle Gordhanbhai from my mobile number on the day of incident to obtain the information.
(6) We had a field on the day of incident. Our field is different from the field of Gordhanbhai. My field is approximately one - two kilometers away from the field of Gordhanbhai. My field is approximately 2.5 to 3 kilometers away from my village. field of Gordhanbhai is situated in the Marcha sim and my field is situated in the Gariyana sim. I do not know in which direction my field is situated from my village. I do not know the direction. My field is not situated on the road where field of Gordhanbhai is situated but it is on other road. There is zigzag kachha road from Mokar to Ranavav. My field can be reached by going though that road. My field is approximately one kilometer interior on the zigzag road. All the farms are said as field. I have two wells in my field. I do not Page 44 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined remember which cash crop was grown in my field at the time of incident. I know that cotton, groundnut are a type of crop. I am aware that at the time of incident it was June month. On some occasion I have to go to the field of Gordhanbhai. But Gordhan has not occasioned to come to my farm.
(7) My father has two other brothers besides Gordhanbhai. Name of one is Dahyabhai and the name of the other is Bhanjibhai. field of Bhanjibhai is situated in the Gariyana sim. Dahyabhai, Bhanjibhai and me, all three of us have the same field. Bhanjibhai has been residing in a house in this joint field. Dahyabhai did not have a single adult child at the time of incident. Name of Bhanjibhai's wife is Rajiben. I do not have any dispute with Bhanjibhai or Dahyabhai. I had seen Bhanjibhai in the evening on the day of incident. Similarly, I had also seen Dahyabhai in the evening on the day of incident. I do not know that the police has questioned Dahyabhai or Bhanjibhai. It did not happen that Bhanjibhai and Dahyabhai came to our family and said that we will not become witness in such a false case. Dahyabhai and Bhanjibhai reside in Mokar. When Dahyabhai and Bhanjibhai met me in the evening on the day of incident, at that time they did not inquire me regarding the incident hence I also did not state any facts of the incident.
(8) It is true that Deva Premji is the flour mill person. In the examination-in-chief, I have dictated that Deva Premji operates this flour mill, but I do not know whether it is owned by him or not. Devabhai is operating this flour mill approximately from past six seven years before the incident. The flour mill is closed from last one year before the incident. I do not know the fact that whether this flour mill is owned by Deva Premji or not. As per my statement, this flour mill was closed from one year before the incident. It did not happen that on the day of incident when Devabhai was milling flour in this flour mill, I and Ratanben had gone there. It did not happen that all four of us togethered there because of this flour mill. I do not know as to what business Deva Premji was doing at the time of incident. I do not know of what business Premji Natha was doing at the time of incident. When the police interrogated me as to why I, Ratanben, Gordhanbhai, Devabhai, Premjibhai Natha were standing beside the flour mill, such has been not asked to me. It is not true that the police did not ask me as to why were all four of us standing near the flour mill, I have not dictated to the police as to why we were standing.
(9) What police have written in my statement, I have dictated the same when I gave statement. After recording my statement, Page 45 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined police read to me. Now I say that, I only stated the police that all four of us were standing near the flour mill, but I did not state the reason as to why we were standing there. After recording my statement, the police read to me. Thereafter I did not feel that the police has not written what I have dictated and have written different fact. I do not know the approximate age of Ratanben. Similarly, I do not know what is the age of Devabhai and I do not know what is the age of Premji Natha. I do not know what would be the age of Gordhanbhai. I do not know if Deva Premji has any field or farm. I do not know as to where Deva Premji's house is situated in the village. Premji Natha does not reside at the field. Premji Natha does not have a shop but I do not know whether he has a farm or not. I know that Premji Natha was an agricultural labour at the time of incident.
(10) I do not know whether Premji Natha had fair ration shop or not. It is false that during the time of incident he had a fair ration shop. I have heard the name of Rambhai Premjibhai Shiyali. I do not know that Ram Premji Shiyali has filed a complaint to the police officers against his father Premji Naran, his grandfather Gordhan Naran and Premji Natha-one who was together in this case. Before my father passed away he never said that by filing a complaint against me, Gordhanbhai and Premji Natha, Ram Premji Shiyali of our village has harassed us. My father has also not said that by making an application to the government, my father got the fair ration shop of Ram Premji closed.
(11) I do not know whether any case against my father was filed or not before the incident. I am also not aware whether a case against Gordhanbhai has been filed or not. Premji Natha has no family relation with me. My father as well as Premji Natha did not have any dispute. I do not know that Premji Natha was the closest friend of my father. I have not seen Premji Natha at my house before or after the incident.
(12) At present I do not know as to what Gordhanbhai has dictated to the Police. Gordhanbhai has not stated to me till date such that I have dictated such fact to the police. Similarly, I do not know as to what Ratanben has dictated to the police. Similarly, till date, Ratanben has not stated me as to what she has stated the police. Similarly, I do not know as to what Deva Premji and Premji Natha has stated to the police. Also, till date they have not stated to me as to what fact they had stated. I have also not stated to anyone as to what I had stated. It did not happen that all four of us got together and dictated the whole complaint of the incident. It Page 46 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined has not happened that after the complaint was recorded, the police read over to all of us and we accepted it as true. I have stated the police that, " The complaint regarding this incident of murder has been made by my elder uncle Gordhanbhai and the said complaint is true and correct." It is not true that there were only three knife blows on the body of my father and there were only four blows on the whole body. It did not happen that I had seen only three blows being inflicted on the body of my father. It did not happen that the accused that I have named, inflicted only three knife blows. It did not happen that Naran Bhikha has inflicted only two knife blows and Dinesh Bhikha has inflicted only one knife blow on my father. It did not happen that only three knife blows were inflicted on my father's body and after that we ran there and at that time my father fell down. It did not happen that only four blows were inflicted on my father and as we ran there, he fell down. If someone is stating that there were only three knife blows inflicted on my father's body and in total four blows were inflicted and he had fallen down, then it is a false statement. It did not happen that my father fell down on the same spot where he was beaten and we took him in the car from the same spot. If someone is stating that we directly took our father to the hospital from the same spot where he had fallen down, then it is a false statement.
(13) It is true that at what time I left my house, I have not stated to the police about it. Similarly, I have not stated to the police since how long I was standing near the flour mill. I have not dictated the fact as to who was standing near the flour mill when I reached there at the time of incident because the police has not asked me anything. It is true that I have only replied to those questions which the police has asked me. According to me, I have dictated more than I was asked. I have not seen whether any JCB machine was working at the time of incident or not. I have not seen seven to eight labourers working at the time and place of incident. It is not in my knowledge that at the time and place of the incident, a JCB machine of Girdhar Karshan was working and a driver named Patel bhai was in it. It is not in my knowledge that six - seven labourers of the JCB were working at the time and place of incident. It did not happen that on the day of incident, my father had left home taking along a spade with him. I do not know that my father landed four axe blows on the JCB machine at the time and place of incident. It is false that my father inflicted four spade marks on the JCB machine due to which a quarrel took place between the driver of the JCB and the labourers. It is false that the incident that has happened with my father took place with the driver of the JCB and the labourers.
Page 47 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined (14) It did not happen that my father stated anything to Bhikha Raja regarding the felling of trees and directly started fighting. If someone is saying so, it is a false statement. It is true that I have not stated the police such that my father was going towards village from home. I have dictated to the police that my father was inflicted a stick blow on the back.
(15) Lakshmiben, alias Laakhiben, is my mother. My marriage was solemnized at the time of incident. My wife's name is Shantiben. I do not know whether Shantiben's police statement was recorded. My wife and mother knew that I left the home. I did not inform them before leaving the home. My mother and wife knew at what time I left the home. I was at home on the night before the incident. My mother and wife knew it. Neither has my mother told me to this day, nor have I asked her what she informed the police. There are approximately 10 to 15 houses in my neighborhood. My neighbors might not have known that I left home on the day of the incident; however, they might have known that I was home the previous night. Adjacent to my home is the house of Arjan Valji Kuchhadia; and the house of Hari Naran Tukadia is located on the other side. Both of them are not the witnesses in this case. I know that Ratanben, Gordhanbhai, Premji Natha and Deva Premji are the witnesses in this case. Ratanben is my aunt. I have heard the name of Parsottam Jethabhai. A 25-30 feet wide road leads from water tank to the village. It is not true that a grocery shop run by Parsottam Jetha is located on this road. It is not true that Parsottam Jetha owns two shops in the same village, both of which are located on this road. Parsottam Jetha does not reside in my neighborhood. I know Parsottambhai by his name. It is not true that, despite knowing that Parshottam Jetha runs a grocery shop on the road leading to the village from the water tank, and as the previous witnesses have denied the existence of such a shop, I have also intentionally made a false statement that the shop did not exist. I have heard the name, Kanji Khimji Tukadia. I have heard the name of Bhikha alias Jivrajbhai. I have also heard the names of Natha Karsan Tukadia, Kaji Karsan and Bhikha Arjan. It is true that their houses are located on both sides of the road leading to the village from the water tank. None of the individuals mentioned above is the witness in this case.
Page 48 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined (16) Gordhanbhai's farm is situated opposite Bhikhabhai's farm. There is a coal factory located on the road leading from the exit of Gordhanbhai's farm i.e. Porbandar Highway. I am not aware of a tea stall run by Mohanbhai being located near the coal factory. It is not true that the accused, Mohanbhai, was serving tea to the factory workers at the time of the incident. It is not true that the accused, Naran, was at Ranavav for work in the government office. It is not true that both of them were about 15 km away from the Mokar village at the time of the incident. Thus, it is not true that Mohanbhai was 3.5 km away and Naranbhaui was 15 km away.
(17) It is not true that my wife and I were not present at Mokar village on the night before the incident or on the day of the incident. I had my mobile phone with me. It is not true that police took the print out of data from my mobile. It is not true that the printout indicates my presence in Ahmedabad on the night before the incident. It is not true that my wife and I were in Ahmedabad on the night before the incident as well as on the day of the incident. It is not true that Gordhanbhai informed me about the incident from Porbandar Hospital. It is not true that Gordhanbhai made a phone call to me while I was in Ahmedabad and that I learned about the incident from him. It is not true that I was within the coverage area in Mokar village until 5 o'clock. It is not true that I reached Porbandar Hospital directly from Ahmedabad after 5 o'clock. It is not true that my wife and I were not in Ahmedabad during the incident. The maternal home of my wife, Shantiben, is in the village. It is not true that, despite not being in the village at the time of the incident or the day before, I have given a false deposition as a witness in this case. It is not true that, since the call details extracted by the police clearly show that I was in Ahmedabad at the time of the incident, I am falsely deposing before the Court that I do not know anything about the bill. It is not true that my mother informed the police any fact stating that I was not in the village on the day of the incident or the day before. My mother also knows that it is not true that I was not present in the village on the day of the incident or on the night before. It is not true that I am falsely deposing that on 23.06.2008, when I was with Gordhanbhai, Ratanben, Devabhai, Premji Natha at the Navapara area, near the flour mill, Naran Bhikha, Dinesh Bhikha, Mohan Bhikha and the Village Sarpanch were also standing at a distance in the street. It is not true that I am falsely deposing that when my father, Premjibhai, was going towards the village from our home, he spoke with Raja Bhikha about the tree, and at that time, Naran Bhikha drew a knife from his waistband, verbally abused my father saying he has become arrogant, and inflicted powerful knife blows to his Page 49 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined chest and left armpit. It is not true that I am falsely stating that when my father tried to hold back the knife, Mohan Bhikha held him and at that moment, Dinesh Bhikha drew the knife from his waistband and stabbed my father in the left side of the waist. It is not true that I am falsely stating that Naran Bhikha and Dinesh Bhikha inflicted 3-4 knife blows on my father and in the meantime, Bhikha Raja hit a hockey blow on the back of my father. It is not true that I am falsely stating that as Gordhanbhai, Ratanben, Devabhai, Premji Natha and I , those persons escaped in a street. It is not true that I am falsely stating that Bhikha Raja's cap and scarf, as well as Dinesh Bhikha's slippers, were lying at the scene of the incident. It is not true that I am falsely stating that I helped my father sit on a raised platform near my home, and took him to the hospital in Bhikha Natha's Maruti Fronty, where the on-duty doctor declared him dead. It is not true that I am falsely stating that my father's dead body was kept in the post-mortem room, that police personnel from Ranavav Police Station arrived there, that my uncle, Gordhanbhai dictated the complaint, and that I witnessed the incident with my own eyes. It is not true that I am falsely stating that because my father lost the Sarpanch election to Bhikha Raja, Bhikha Raja and his three sons, by holding an old grudge, inflicted knife blows on my father as earlier described; and that Bhikha Raja attacked him with hockey stick, thereby the four of them murdered my father. It is not true that no person named Bhikha Natha exists and that Maruti Fronty car I mentioned did not belong to him. It is not true, since no one was aware that we took my father in Bhikha Natha's Fronty car, I fabricated this fact. It is not true that I stated in Court, as being tutored, that I could not identify whether it was a knife because I was standing at a distance. It is not true that I am falsely stating that it appeared to be a knife. It is not true that the accused has no relation with the hockey stick, cap or knife- article having Mark M, E, G and scarf- Mark F. It is not true that police and I, in collusion with each another, have fabricated the evidences. It is not true that I stated, as I was tutored, by looking at the muddamal, that it is the same one that was seen with the accused at the time of the incident. It is not true that I saw the muddamal, which I identified, for the first time in Court today. It is not true that I have falsely identified the clothes, marked as article 'V', as belonging to my father.
(18) It is true that neither did the police ask me which clothes my father and others were wearing at the time of the incident, nor did I state it to the police. It is true that I have not given any description to the police stating that Bhikha Raja was wearing cap and scarf, and Dinesh Bhikha had put on slippers. It is true that every member Page 50 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined of my family returned to the village from Porbandar Hospital. It is not true that we went to the scene of the incident with the police at that time. It is not true that we went to the scene of the incident after performing a flame-based cremation. I do not know the proceedings carried out by the police at the scene of the incident. I have not shown the scene of the incident to the police. It did not happen that cap, scarf and slippers were lying at the scene of the incident; and it is not true that if anyone states that no such article was lying there. It is not true that the details about the cap, scarf and slippers were fabricated later at the behest of the police. It is not true that Bhikha Raja never wears cap or scarf, and Dinesh Bhikha has no relation with the said slippers identified by me in the Court. It is not true that the details about the cap, scarf and slippers were fabricated for acting as a witness after the panchnama was drawn up by the police.
(20) The police did not inquire me before the cremation of my father. My father was cremated between 7 pm and 9 pm. The police met me for the first time only after 9 pm. Police inquired me between 9 pm and 12 pm. I do not know how many others were also inquired at that time. It is true that I informed the police about the incident after 9 pm and I did not inform about it to anyone else. It is not true that the police did not record my statement between 9 pm and 12 pm. Police did not inquire me before 9 pm. (21) When I reached Porbandar Hospital, I did not notice that the Porbandar Police were present there. I did not meet the doctor. I was in the hospital when my father's post-mortem was conducted. I do not know if the police had drawn the inquest panchnama of my father's body in the hospital. I know that Gordhanbhai was standing with the police. I did not tell the police at the hospital that the deceased was my father and as to how the incident occurred. I did not discuss that though I was his son, Gordhanbhai wanted to file the complaint. I did not suggest that Gordhanbhai, being an elder, should file the complaint. The police did not decide who would register the complaint. Gordhanbhai did not address me as Premjibhai's son when he was standing with the police. The incident occurred as I described in the Court today. I learned about the Ranavav police staff from the people sitting there. When the Ranavav Police arrived, I did not feel it necessary to approach and inform them that I was the deceased's son and had witnessed the incident. My uncle was present there. He was the elder member in the family and generally made decisions for the family. I would have filed the complaint if my uncle had not been present there. I did not feel required that my statement needed to be recorded by the Page 51 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined police when Gordhanbhai filed the complaint. Gordhanbhai did not ask me to do so. Gordhanbhai did not tell me that he had filed his complaint and ask me to give my statement. It is not true that it was not possible to register my complaint or get my statement recorded because I was coming from Ahmedabad; and therefore, Gordhanbhai was made to act as the complainant in this case. I do not know that police inquired Gordhanbhai twice. I did not see my father's body in the hospital. I only saw his face when the body was brought to my home. I did not see the entire body. I did not feel the need to check my father's injuries. I do not know how far Khamdhrol village is from my village. The person whose Fronty was used during the incident did not reside in my village. The person who possesses Maruti car is not my relative. There were bloodstains of my father on the back seat of the Maruti car in which he was taken. I was sitting in the back of the car, in the foot-rest area. It did not happen that I informed the police about where my father was seated and where the bloodstains were in the car. I was wearing the same clothes untill the police questioned me on the day of the incident. The police did not seize my clothes during the inquiry. I did not voluntarily hand over my clothes to them. I do not know whether the police seized clothes of Ratanben, Premji Natha, Deva Premji, or Bhikha Natha. Police did not ask me why there was no blood on my clothes if I had carried my father.
(21) The raised platform would be approximately 200-250 feet away from the scene of the incident. The house having the raised platform is not mine. It is Daya Devji's house. Daya Devji is not a witness in this case. My house does not have a raised platform. It did not happen that my father was placed on the raised platform of my house. In my statement before the police, I stated that my father was helped to sit on a raised platform, not on Daya Devji's platform. This raised platform is approximately 10 steps away from my house. I stated before the police that my father was helped to sit on a raised platform near my house. When my father was helped to sit on a raised platform, I was aware that it belonged to Daya Devj, not us. My uncle, Gordhanbhai, and I have witnessed the same incident at the same time. We did not witness different incidents. We did not see different scenes of the incident. It did not happen that my father was taken from different places of the incident. The election matter dates back two years prior to the incident. It is true that during these two years, my father filed a police complaint, whereas the accused did not file any complaint against him. The police did not ask me about the whereabouts of Bhanjibhai and Dayabhai. It is not true that I am falsely stating that I was engaged in farming at the time of the incident and farming is Page 52 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined my occupation. It is not true that I was in Ahmedabad with my wife for some other work at the time of the incident. It is not true that no one witnessed the incident involving my father; however, my aunt and relatives, my father's close friends and relatives have been falsely presented as eye-witnesses and the case is fabricated. It is not true that the accused have been falsely implicated in the case despite having no connection with my father's death. It is not true that our family member stated before Mr. D.S. Vyas, Police Officer, Porbandar that they did not know anything about the incident or the how the deceased died. I do not know anything about Porbandar Police's arrival at the hospital before Ranavav Police. It is not true that police staff was present at Porbandar hospital and they inquired us about everything. It is not true that I was not present in the hospital when the dead body was taken away.
(22) I have seen blood and it is red in color. A knife touching the body does not cause bleeding. It did not happen that someone merely just touched a knife to my father, Premjibhai. It is not true that I falsely state that my father was stabbed with a knife. It is false to say that my father did not bleed because the knife was merely touched to him. I informed the police about the bleeding from my father's body. I have not mentioned about bleeding from my father's body in my earlier examination-in-chief during my deposition.
(23) I did not state before the police whether there was blood at the place where my father collapsed. I did not state before the police whether there was blood on the raised platform where my father was helped to sit. I do not remember whether I stated before the police about the bleeding when my father was taken to the raised platform from the place where he collapsed. Blood spots were there on the road, not in the street where my father collapsed. I did not state to the police that my father was blood-smeared when I saw him. It is not true that I did not see my father being stabbed with a knife; and therefore, I do not know till date whether my father was bleeding, and therefore, I do know exactly where my father was murdered. First blow was inflicted to my father on the road. I stated in my examination-in-chief that Sarpanch of our village was standing at a distance in the street at that time. I did not see that Sarpanch walk up to my father where he was standing.
Page 53 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined (24) The incident occurred after 15-20 minutes after I arrived at the flour mill. While Gordhanbhai, Ratanben and others were standing near the flour mill, we were discussing sowing the seeds. Gordhanbhai, Ratanben, and I were sowing the seeds. We were sowing cluster bean and ladyfinger seeds in the yard near the flour mill. It is not true that the yard where the seeds were being sown did not belong to Gordhanbhai. The yard is not a fallow land. The yard measures 100 var. It is true that this yard does not have an irrigation facility. It is the first time I have mentioned in the Court about the sowing of seeds. It is not true that I am falsely mentioning the seeds merely to align with Gordhanbhai's statement.
(25) The yard where the seeds were being sown is owned by Gordhanbhai. Gordhanbhai owns a farm measuring 5-6 Bigha. I do not know whether he cultivates vegetables on the farm. Gordhanbhai's house is approximately 2.5 - 3 km away from this farm. I do not know for whom the seeds were sown. It is not true that Gordhanbhai had sown cluster beans and ladyfinger on his 5-6 Bigha farm at the time of the incident. Our village has cattle such as cows, buffaloes, goats, etc. It is not true that the cattle eat up whatever is sown in the yard land near the village. The yard has a large wall on one side and walls measuring 2.5 - 3 feet on the other sides. The large wall would measure approximately 10-20 feet. The house with the large wall belongs to my uncle, Bhanji Naran. There is a 2.5 - 3 feet wide space and a wall between the flour mill and the yard. The wall of Devabhai's flour mill room appears to be higher than my height. It is true that Devabhai's flour mill is enclosed with 10-foot walls on all sides. Devabhai's flour mill faces the village's main road. Our sowing task was not complete when the incident occurred. The sowing was not completed in the yard when Premji Natha arrived.
(26) It is not true that Mokar Panchayat is the owner of the yard.
(27) I do not know Lilabhai Mekariya. I know Khimji Mavabhai Shiyali, who lives in my village but he is not related to me. It is not true if my fellow villagers state that I reside in Ahmedabad. I used to visit Ahmedabad for 2 to 4 days at a time when I was working with Anjali Courier. I used to work for the company there. I used to receive a salary based on the work done; which varied between Rs.
Page 54 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined 4000, Rs. 5000, and Rs. 7000. Accounts were settled annually. It is not true that Lilabhai Mekariya is the owner of Anjali Courier. However, the owner is Lilabhai Shiyali, who lives in Ahmedabad. He was not residing in our village until I came to know about it. My work at Anjali Courier is to review and verify the delivery vouchers. I cannot specify how many vouchers I used to verify in a day. The task of verifying vouchers is based on reports; therefore, time required cannot be ascertained. It was not true that I was a partner in Anjali Courier. I am not in a position to furnish any document for establishing my employment with Anjali Courier. Lilabhai would call me when there was work. I used to go to Ahmedabad whenever I was called for work. The duration of my stay depended on amount of work. The company provided me with a shared room for my stay. There were also locals residents staying with me. Therefore, I cannot specify their names. Everyone worked as instructed by the company. Anjali Courier has many branches in Ahmedabad. Anjali Courier used to engage franchises to manage heavy workload. One such franchise was registered under my name. I was working as an employee in this company. It is not true that I was working at Ahmedabad with Anjali Courier at the time of the incident. Franchise was operating under my name.
(28) I used to perform the same task in the franchise. Lakhman Naran from Mokar village used to manage the franchise on my behalf. As a franchise, I was merely working for the company; hence, I had to go whenever the company required. It is true that whomever it is needed to withdraw money, the company disburses the money with my signature. Therefore, I have a bank account in Ahmedabad. I have a bank account in Memnagar area. The account is still active and has ongoing transactions. Payments are made to me in cash in the Anjali franchise. The name of the franchise is Krishna Enterprise Company. I now state that the franchise operates under the name Krishna Enterprise. I cannot furnish any document of Krishna Enterprise without company's permission. The firm continues to operate till date. It is not true that I concealed my occupation in the police statement and have mentioned farming as an occupation as a false witness.
(29) The mobile number I furnished in my examination-in-chief belongs to Prakash Prabhudas Parikh, a resident of Porbandar. He is neither my relative nor my friend. Anjali Courier or Krishna Enterprise has not given me any mobile phone for the work. I did not mention in my police statement that the mobile number is registered in the name of Prakash Parikh.
Page 55 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined (30) It is not true that I am concealing an important fact to establish my presence at Mokar village.
(31) The cremation lasted for 1.5 - 2 hours. A large number of people gathered at that time. I do not know if people were discussing about the incident at the crematorium. I did not talk to anyone at the crematorium. Nobody asked me about the incident. I informed the police about the incident for the first time when my statement was recorded. It took about 12 hours after the incident when my statement was recorded. I did not see the police visit the scene of the incident, or any other place, or my home during these 12 hours. The police arrived at the place where I was standing, asked me what I knew about the incident, and I dictated my statement there. The police asked me where I was at the time of the incident and what I knew about it. It did not happen that police came to me in search of Rajeshbhai. It did not happen that somebody gave my name to the police and police came to me. My statement was recorded near my home. I do not remember at present that while recording my statement, police read over the complaint filed by Gordhanbhai to me. It is not true that my statement was recorded after that. In my statement, I have mentioned that the complaint regarding the incident was filed by my uncle, Gordhanbhai, which is true and correct.
(32) I heard in the hospital that the complaint filed by Gordhanbhai was true and correct; therefore, I mentioned it. I do not remember that while registering the complaint, I had heard the fact regarding cutting of the khejri tree. I do not remember whether I had heard about the fact that my father was helped to sit on the raised platform at the time of registering the complaint. I heard about the fact that my father was helped to sit in the car from the raised platform at the time of registering the complaint.
(33) I do not remember if the road work was in progress at the time of the incident. It did not happen that the work was in progress, nor did I see Bhikhabhai Sarpanch overseeing the clearing of road by other workers. It is true that my father's house is located at Navapura. It is not true that road work was in progress near my father's home. I stated in my police statement: "As the road work of the Navapara Gram Panchayat was in progress, the Sarpanch was standing there to oversee the road cleaning." The main road of our village, near the flour mill, is approximately 25 to 30 feet wide. It is not true that no road work was in progress and that it was the road of Navapura.
Page 56 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined (34) My father served as the Sarpanch for about 10 years and during that period oversaw the cleaning of the roads of Mokar village. The Panchayat oversees the cleaning work, which is carried out by other workers. It is not true that cleaning work of Amrapar road was being carried out by others under the leadership of Bhikhabhai. It is not true that while we were standing near the flour mill, the Sarpanch was overseeing the cleaning of the road. It is not true that several laborers witnessed the cleaning of the road. It is not true I was mentioned absent in the inquiry of the laborers.
(35) Khejri and peepal trees were large; however, I do not remember for how many years I had been seeing them. Lastly, I saw them collapsed at the time of the incident. It is not true that the laborers were removing the fallen trees from the road. I do not know when the trees were cut. They were freshly cut two hours before the incident. I do not know who cut the trees. It is not true that the fallen trees were obstructing the road. It is not true that the persons who cut the trees were present at the time of the incident. The khejri tree was located at the side of the road. The peepal tree was also on the same side. It is not true that my father had a quarrel with the Sarpanch, Bhikhabhai, over the cutting of the khejri and peepal trees. It is not true that the issue arose because Bhikhabhai was performing better in Navapara than my father.
(36) It is not true that I stated about not recognizing the knives earlier because I was absent. I do not remember whether the police asked me if there was blood on the knives. It is not true that the reason behind the knives were the speedy occurrence of the incident. Knives, when seen in the murderer's hand, were raised above the ground. The footwear remains grounded on the land. When Dinesh Bhikha ran away, he had a slipper on one foot while the other was bare. Therefore, I say that this slipper belongs to Dinesh Bhikha. I am being shown muddamal article no. Mark G. I cannot say whether that slipper is new. It is not true that this muddamal slipper does not belong to Dinesh. The police have not brought me the other slipper identical to this one. It is not true that the scarf and the cap are new.
(37) I understand what a stick is. Stick and hockey stick are the same. It is not true that the straight one is called a stick and the one bent like snake hood is called hockey stick. Bhikhabhai attacked my father with a hockey stick. I do not know with which part of the hockey stick he attacked my father. I cannot say whether the blow was powerful or weak. When my father was attacked with this hockey stick, I did not have time to see whether Page 57 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined there was a bruise, swelling, or bleeding on his body. I did not see the injury caused by stick till the cremation was completed. It is not true that there was no injury on my father's body that could have been caused by a stick or hockey stick. It is not true that I state that Bhikhabhai had a hockey stick as part of conspiracy to implicate him.
(38) At the time of the incident, Bhikhabhai had been the Sarpanch of Mokar village for the last two years. It is not true that Bhkhabhai, as the Sarpanch of this village for the past two years, oversaw road, water tank works, etc. in Mokar village. It is not true that I am unaware of Bhikhabhai's work in Mokar village, as I did not visit the village if it was not needed. My father's home is located in Navapara, Mokar village. It is not true that I am unaware of the developmental works carried out by the Sarpanch in Mokar village because I was residing in Ahmedabad and not in Mokar village. I do not know that except Bhikhabhai, his sons are not the members of our Panchayat. I do not know that Bhikhabhai's sons are involved in farming; but they stay at the farm. I do not know that Bhikhabhai's son runs a tea-stall. I do not know until now that Bhikhabhai's son works at a tea-stall. It is true that I do not know until now about the occupation of Bhikhabhai Sarpanch's son. It is not true that I do not know about the occupation of Bhikhabhai's son as I have been residing in Ahmedabad for many years. It is not true that Bhikhabhai's sons are not required to help in the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat. It is not true that I state that Bhikhabhai's sons were standing in the street in order to implicate them.
(39) The police did not ask me how and where my father was sitting when he was taken in the Maruti Fronty, and therefore, I did not tell them. It is not true that the police did not inquire me about whether deceased Premjibhai, was sitting in the front or back seat in Fronty. It is true that I was sitting at the back of the car, in the foot-rest area. It is not true that I have made the statement that I was sitting at the back of the car, in the foot-rest area, to align with Gordhanbhai's deposition.
(40) Gordhanbhai, the complainant, attended the last hearing when my deposition was recorded, and he has attended today as well. It is not true that I am deposing in Court today after reading Gordhanbhai's deposition.
(41) I heard not only being arrogant remarks while I was standing, but I also heard other things. I also heard why the peepal and khejri trees were cut down. I also heard abusive words. I heard all three of Page 58 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined aforementioned things spoken; I do not know whether anyone else heard them. Abusive words are bad words. It is not true that I am falsely stating the facts regarding the abusive words, being arrogant and the cutting down of trees to prove my presence there. It is true that Mohan Bhikha was not armed with any weapon. It is not true that I am stating that Mohan Bhikha held my father in order to implicate him. It did not happen that I do not know that in which direction the attackers went. It is true that the accused ran down a street towards the village. It is not true that I am falsely stating that the attackers fled down the street towards the village.
(42) My father was alive when he was helped to sit on a raised platform. I am not sure whether he was able to recognize everyone. It is not true that he was speaking at that time. However, his eyes were open at that time. He was walking. However, I cannot confirm whether he was unconscious. My father was brought to the raised platform on foot with assistance. It is not true that, while he was walking, our family members were asking what had happened. I helped him walk on foot with support. I cannot state as to how many steps we took. We walked approximately 200-225 feet with assistance. It took approximately 5-10 minutes to walk 200 steps. It is not true that my father was speaking, but his words could not be understood. It is not true that four persons helped my father sit by carrying him. It is not true that, because the deceased was my father, I am deposing falsely. It is not true that I was not present at the time and scene of the incident; but I was in Ahmedabad. It is not true that I am intentionally not producing the documents of my employment with Anjali Courier.
No cross-examination.
15. PW-9 - Premji Natha (Exh.-56) who has also supported the case of the prosecution, which was corroborated by the evidence of PW-12, being the Investigating Officer and no material contradictions were brought by the defence from his evidence also. Considering all these aspects, we do not find any illegality or any irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.
16. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Page 59 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined Sections 299 and Section 300 of IPC, which read as under :
Section 299. Culpable homicide.--
Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Illustrations :
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there.
Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.
Explanation 1.-- A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2.-- Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3.-- The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any Page 60 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
Section 300. Murder.--
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
(Secondly) -- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
(Thirdly) -- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature 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 is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Illustrations
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.
(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient Page 61 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z's death.
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.
Exception 1.-- When culpable homicide is not murder.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisos:--
(First) -- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
(Secondly) -- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
(Thirdly) -- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation.-- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Illustrations
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills. Y, Z's child. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing Page 62 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of A's deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.
(e) A attempts to pull Z's nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homi-cide, but A is guilty of murder.
Exception 2.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Illustration Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable Page 63 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined homicide.
Exception 3.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.-- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5.-- Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Illustration A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.
17. Looking to the legal provisions of Section 300 of IPC that 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' is applicable in the circumstances where the knowledge or intention are not there on the part of the accused or the accused has not acted in cruel or ghastly manner and exceeded or the accused has taken the unusual advantage of the situation, under such circumstances only, the defence can take shelter that the offence does not fall under Section 302 but, it falls under Page 64 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined Section 304 Part-II, however, in the present case, while considering and appreciating the reasoning given by the Trial Court and on perusal of the evidence of all the three material witnesses and corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer, who had performed the Post-mortem, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order. The Trial Court while recording the reasons from para 106 onwards, has considered the evidence in detail and has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order and there is no any infirmity or any illegality found in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. Though the panch witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution but, merely on the ground of declaring them as hostile, the case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside.
17.1 So far as the contention raised by the learned advocate Mr. Popat with regard to place of occurrence is concerned, on perusal of the factum of the place of incident and the map prepared by the Circle Officer, there is no any discrepancy relating to the place of occurrence is found and therefore, we do not agree with the contention raised by the learned advocate Mr. Popat. The Trial Court has also considered the aspect of motive which is important in a criminal trial and it was discussed by the Trial Court in paragraphs 204 to 206 of the impugned judgment and order and it was proved during the trial that there was some enmity between two groups by producing cogent and material evidence. So far as the aspect Page 65 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined of sudden provocation as agitated by the learned advocate Mr. Popat is concerned, on perusal of the evidence recorded by the Trial Court and on perusal of the facts of the case, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Trial Court while discussing the issue no.3 in para 207 and there was no reason for the appellants accused to inflict an injury by knife, there was no sudden provocation or grave altercation which could have provoked the appellants for making an assault by knife upon the deceased and even otherwise also, repeatedly inflicting blows almost seven in number and on vital part of the body with a great force, the Trial Court has also dealt with the said contention in para 207 in detail after recording the reasons.
18. The law on the aspect of giving benefit under the exceptions described under Section 300 of IPC is well established from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1958 SC 465, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified as under :
"If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."
It was said that the intention that the section requires must be related, not only to the bodily injury inflicted, but also to the clause, "and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."
This is a favourite argument in this kind of case but is fallacious. If there is an intention to inflict an injury that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, then the intention is to kill and in that event, the "thirdly " would be unnecessary because the Page 66 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined act would fall under the first part of the section, namely-
"If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death."
To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under s. 300; First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender."
While dismissing the appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering the case, has observed and held in paragraph 17 as under :
"17. It is true that in a given case the enquiry may be linked up with the seriousness of the injury. For example, if it can be proved, or if the totality of the circumstances justify an inference, that the prisoner only intended a superficial scratch and that by accident his victim stumbled and fell on the sword or spear that was used, then of course the offence is not murder. But that is not because the prisoner did not intend the injury that he intended to inflict to be as serious as it turned out to be but because he did not intend to inflict the injury in question at all. His intention in such a case would be to inflict a totally different injury. The difference is not One of law but one of fact; and whether the conclusion should be one way or the other is a matter of proof, where necessary, by calling in aid all reasonable inferences of fact in the absence of direct testimony. It is not one for guess-work and fanciful conjecture."Page 67 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined 18.1 It would also be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vinod Kumar vs. Amritpal Alias Chhotu, reported in AIR 2022 SC 244, wherein, it has been observed and held in paragraphs 16 to 22 as under :
"16. The Offence of culpable homicide is defined under Section 299 of IPC. Culpable homicide is the genus and the offence of murder as defined under Section 300 of IPC is its species.
Sections 299 and 300 of IPC reads thus:--
"299. Culpable homicide. - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide."
300. Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
Secondly --If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
Thirdly --If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature 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 is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid."
Exception 1.--When culpable homicide is not murder.--Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
Page 68 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined The above exception is subject to the following provisos:--
First.--That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly.--That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly.--That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation.--Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2.--Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3.--Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.--Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation.--It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5.--Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent." (underline supplied) Now, the question is whether in the present case, the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is made out. Obviously Page 69 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined in this case, none of the exceptions to Section 300 are applicable. The issue which is required to be examined is whether the case will be covered by "thirdly" in Section 300. On this aspect, we will make a reference to a decision of this Court in the case of Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab which has stood the test of time.
Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said decision which are locus classicus read thus: -
"12. To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under S. 300, "Thirdly";
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
13. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under S. 300, "Thirdly. It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry Page 70 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No one has a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduced that the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional."
(underline supplied)
17. The first two elements laid down in paragraph 12 have been established in this case as the factum of bodily injuries and its nature have been duly established. The question is whether the third element of intention to inflict the particular bodily injuries was present. As narrated by PW2, he along with deceased Balveer Singh were forcibly taken in a vehicle. When the vehicle reached unmetalled road, it was stopped. Thereafter, the accused banged deceased Balveer Singh flat on the ground. While the accused no. 1 was holding Balveer Singh, the accused nos. 4 and 5 started assaulting deceased Balveer Singh. There was no scope for Balveer Singh to resist. Thus, he was taken out of the vehicle and was forced to lie down on the ground. Thereafter, the accused started assaulting him. Apart from the injuries on non-vital parts, there was a fracture of 6th to 10th ribs on the right side and the right lung was ruptured. Even the wind pipe and food pipe were ruptured. There was an injury to liver. The cause of death as certified by the Board was excessive bleeding due to injuries on vital parts like right lung as well as liver and the resultant shock. Going by the version of PW2, one of the accused held deceased Balveer Singh who was lying flat on the ground and at least three accused persons assaulted him. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the injuries on the chest which resulted into fracture of 5 ribs and rupture of right lung were accidental or un-intentional. Therefore, even the third element was established. From the evidence of PW3 Dr. Jaspal Badappa, it can be gathered that the injuries on the vital parts like right lung and liver which resulted into bleeding and shock were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary cause of nature.
18. Once the prosecution establishes the existence of the three ingredients forming a part of "thirdly" in Section 300, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on the part of the accused to cause death. As held by this Court in the case of Virsa Singh (supra), it does not matter that there was no intention even to cause the injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of Page 71 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined nature. Even the knowledge that an act of that kind is likely to cause death is not necessary to attract "thirdly". Hence, it follows that clause "thirdly" of Section 300 will apply in this case.
19. We are constrained to observe that the High Court adopted an easy method of accepting the only contention canvassed that the offence made out was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. As noticed earlier, the High Court ignored that there were injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. The High Court did not notice that all the elements of "thirdly" in Section 300 were established.
20. It was argued that the accused took the deceased to a doctor which shows the absence of intention to kill him. Apart from the fact that for the reasons recorded above, the absence of intention to kill is not relevant in the facts of the case, the injuries found by PW3 on the face of the deceased which were not the ante mortem injuries establish that before throwing the body of the deceased in a canal, his face was completely smashed by the accused. The fact that accused after killing deceased Balveer Singh went to a common relative will not be of any assistance to the accused.
21. The view taken by High Court in the impugned Judgment and order that the offence under Section 300 was not made out is not even a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record. As we are of the view that the High Court has committed a gross error by applying Section 304 Part II of IPC, the Judgment and order of the High Court will have to be set aside and the judgment and order of the Sessions Court will have to be restored.
22. We hold that the learned Additional District and Session Judge was right in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of IPC. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court dated 18th July 2016. We restore the Judgment and order dated 26th September 2011 in Session Case No. 04/2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. Therefore, the substantive sentence and the fine imposed by the Court of Sessions for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of IPC is restored."
18.2 Yet one another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court clarifying the law relating to Section 300 of IPC Exceptions 4 or Page 72 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined Section 300 Thirdly, determination of murder or culpable homicide, applicability of Section 300 Exception 4, burden of proof and determination, Law re-clarified in case of Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in [2023] 13 SCC 365, wherein, it has been observed and held in paragraphs 51 and 53 to 59 as under :
"51. We shall now deal with the submission as regards the applicability of the fourth Exception to Section 300 of the IPC. However, before we proceed to deal with the submission, it would be appropriate to look into the oral evidence of PW 7, Dr. Shrikant Suresh Chandekar, Medical Officer who carried out the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and also prepared the post mortem report.
53. In order to appreciate the question, it will be profitable to refer to the definition of murder as provided in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code which is quoted below:
"300. Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
Secondly.--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
Thirdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,--
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 is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Illustrations
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in Page 73 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined consequence. A commits murder.
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.
(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z's death.
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.
Exception 1.--When culpable homicide is not murder.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self- control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:--
First.--That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly.--That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly.--That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.Page 74 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined Explanation.--Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Illustrations
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills Y, Z's child. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight.
A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of A's deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.
(e) A attempts to pull Z's nose. Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was giving by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.
Exception 2.--Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to Page 75 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Illustration Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide.
Exception 3.--Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.--Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.--It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5.--Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Illustration A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder."
Page 76 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined
54. At this stage, it will also be profitable to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another reported in (1976) 4 SCC 382 where this Court laid down the distinction between murder and the culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the following way:
"12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, "culpable homicide" is genus and "murder" its specie. All "murder" is "culpable homicide" but not vice- versa. Speaking generally, "culpable homicide" sans "special characteristics of murder", is "culpable homicide not amounting to murder". For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, "culpable homicide of the first degree". This is the greatest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as "murder". The second may be termed as "culpable homicide of the second degree". This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is "culpable homicide of the third degree". This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304.
13. The academic distinction between "murder" and "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" has vexed the courts for more than a century.The confusion is caused, if courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minutiae abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and
300. The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences.
Section 299 Section 300 A person commits culpable Subject to certain exceptions homicide if the act by which culpable homicide is murder if the the death is caused is done- act by which the death caused is done-
INTENTION Page 77 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined
(a) with the intention of (1) with the intention of causing causing death; or death; or
(b) with the intention of (2) with the intention of causing causing such bodily injury as is such bodily injury as the offender likely to cause death; or knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; or * * * KNOWLEDGE
(c) with the knowledge that the (4) with the knowledge that the act act is likely to cause death, is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and without any excuse for incurring that risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above.
14. Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300. The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or condition. It is noteworthy that the "intention to cause death" is not an essential requirement of clause (2). Only the intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. This aspect of clause (2) is borne out by Illustration (b) appended to Section 300.
15. Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such knowledge on the part of the offender. Instances of cases falling under clause (2) of Section 300 can be where the assailant causes death by a fist blow intentionally given knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver, or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause death of that particular person as a result of the rupture of the liver, or spleen or the failure of the heart, as the case may be. If the assailant had no such knowledge Page 78 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined about the disease or special frailty of the victim, nor an intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence will not be murder, even if the injury which caused the death, was intentionally given.
16. In clause (3) of Section 300, instead of the words "likely to cause death" occurring in the corresponding clause (b) of Section 299, the words "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature" have been used. Obviously, the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine but real, and, if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The difference between clause (b) of Section 299 and clause (3) of Section 300 is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word "likely" in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of "probable" as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words "bodily injury ... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature.
17. For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Rajwant v. State of Kerala [AIR 1966 SC 1874 : 1966 Supp SCR 230 :
1966 Cri LJ 1509.] is an apt illustration of this point.
18. In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 SCR 1495 : 1958 Cri LJ 818.] Vivian Bose, J. speaking for this Court, explained the meaning and scope of clause (3), thus (at p. 1500):
"The prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under Section 300, 'thirdly'. First, it must establish quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; secondly the nature of the injury must be proved. These are purely objective investigations. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, that is to say, Page 79 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further, and fourthly it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender."
19. Thus according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh case of even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be "murder". Illustration (c) appended to Section 300 clearly brings out this point.
20. Clause (c) of Section 299 and clause (4) of Section 300 both require knowledge of the probability of the act causing death. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to dilate much on the distinction between these corresponding clauses. It will be sufficient to say that clause (4) of Section 300 would be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death of a person or persons in general -- as distinguished from a particular person or persons -- being caused from his imminently dangerous act, approximates to a practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
21. From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is "murder" or "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 of the Penal Code, is Page 80 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined reached. This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of "murder" contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", punishable under the first part of Section 304, of the Penal Code."
55. Applying the above principles to the case before us we find that there is no dispute that the death of the deceased occurred due to culpable homicide and not due to accident or suicide. We, therefore, propose to consider whether the incident comes within any of the exceptions indicated in Section 300 of the Code.
56. In order to bring the case within fourth exception, the essential requirement as pointed out by this Court in the case of Parkash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2004) 11 SCC 381 para 7 is as follows:
"7. The fourth exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case of provocation not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact, Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A "sudden fight" implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral Page 81 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused: (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4, all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The expression "undue advantage" as used in the provision means "unfair advantage"." (Emphasis supplied)
57. Thus, the sine qua non for the application of an Exception to Section 300 always is that it is a case of murder but the accused claims the benefit of the Exception to bring it out of that Section and to make it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We must, therefore, assume that this would be a case of murder and it is for the accused to show the applicability of the Exception. Exception 4 reads as under:-
"Exception 4.--Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the Page 82 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner."
58. A perusal of the provision would reveal that four conditions must be satisfied to bring the matter within Exception 4:
(i) it was a sudden fight;
(ii) there was no premeditation;
(iii) the act was done in the heat of passion; and; that (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
59. On a plain reading of Exception 4, it appears that the help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found."
18.3 In case of Anil @ Natho Rameshbhai Pansuriya (Patel) vs. State of Gujarat, reported in [2021] 2 GLR 969, after considering all the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble apex Court, this Court has observed and held in paragraph 70 as under :
"70. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus :
(1) When the court is confronted with the question, what offence the accused could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act.
If the intention or knowledge was such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused. To illustrate : 'A' is bound hand and foot. 'B' comes and placing his revolver against the head of 'A', shoots 'A' in his head killing him instantaneously. Here, there will be no difficulty in holding that the intention of 'B' in shooting 'A' was to kill him, though only single injury was caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC. Taking another instance, 'B' sneaks into the bed room of his enemy 'A' while the latter is asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the Page 83 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined left chest of 'A', 'B' forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of 'A' and runs away. 'A' dies shortly thereafter. The injury to 'A' was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. There may be no difficulty in holding that 'B' intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This would bring the act of 'B' within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and render him guilty of the offence of murder although only single injury was caused.
(2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused's case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC.
(3) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder.
(4) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes of cases: (i) when the case falls under one or the other of the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death' but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury 'likely to cause death' and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of Page 84 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined the IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death.
(5) The word 'likely' means probably and it is distinguished from more 'possibly'. When chances of happening are even or greater than its not happening, we may say that the thing will 'probably happen'. In reaching the conclusion, the court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by the act he was likely to cause death.
(6) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder when the case is brought within the five exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case under any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in establishing any one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out and the case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of the IPC.
(7) The court must address itself to the question of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack.
(8) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries.
Page 85 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined (9) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case.
(10) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies.
(11) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC."
18.4 It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu vs. State of Kerala, reported in [2024] LawSuit SC 1093, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, relying upon the decision in case of Virsa Singh (Supra), has discussed the provisions of Section 299, Section 300 and 4 exceptions to Section 300 in detail and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against an order of conviction under Section 302 of IPC.
19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the Page 86 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined case and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, we are of the opinion that the Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2013 filed by the appellant - Naran Bhikha Shiyani, being devoid of any merits, deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. The findings recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper and no lenient view can be taken as the case does not fall under any of the exceptions as carved out under Section 300 of IPC.
19.1 So far as the Criminal Appeal Nos.409 of 2013 and 700 of 2013 filed by the original complainant are concerned, the Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence of the witnesses at length and considering the facts of the case, has rightly passed the order of acquittal in favour of the respondents accused as the Trial Court has dealt with the evidence in detail as many as 56 paragraphs. Therefore, both the appeals are hereby dismissed. No interference is required to be called for in the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
20. Record and proceedings be transmitted back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Page 87 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/325/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/03/2025 undefined FURTHER ORDER The appellant - Naran Bhikha Shiyani is directed to surrender before the concerned Court within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today, without fail.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 88 of 88 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Mar 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 25 22:39:31 IST 2025