Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.3 In connection with the incident which occurred on 13th May, 2007, the P.W 1 Mangalbhai Shanabhai Chauhan, the husband of the deceased, lodged the FIR, Exh.12 at the Kapadwanj Rural Police Station, stating that he was residing with his family at village Bhadarwana Muvada. He stated in the complaint that the accused was residing in the same locality and was a bachelor. The accused was residing with his widowed mother and a brother viz. Chandubhai. It is also stated that the accused, past two months, was keeping an evil eye on his wife, the deceased, and the deceased used to ignore the accused. The deceased had stopped going out all alone. It is also stated that the son of the accused's uncle viz. Kantibhai Mathurbhai had also reprimanded the accused and had explained to the accused to behave properly and stop looking towards the deceased with an evil eye. It is further stated in the complaint that on the day of the incident, the P.W 1 was at his house along with his wife, the deceased and on that day, the other guests of the P.W 1 had come to his house in the evening and the deceased was preparing herself to serve the guests with tea. The deceased went to the rear part of her house to fetch firewood and at that time, the P.W.1 and the others at his house heard shouts of the deceased, as a result, everyone rushed at the place and witnessed the accused inflicting injuries with a knife by pouncing on her chest. It is also stated that the P.W 1 and the others tried to save the deceased and separated the accused. Due to the injury sustained by the deceased in her chest, she started bleeding profusely and was taken to the Government Hospital in a rickshaw. The doctor at the Government Hospital gave some preliminary treatment and thereafter, on the next day, the deceased was shifted to the hospital of Dr. Umesh Shah. Dr. Umesh Shah advised the P.W 1 to admit the deceased in any hospital at Ahmedabad. The P.W 1 however, was not able to admit his wife in a hospital at Ahmedabad, but decided to admit the deceased at J.B Mehta Hospital, Kapadwanj and after being admitted, the doctor declared the wife of the P.W 1 as dead.

8. Being dissatisfied, the accused-appellant has come up with this appeal.

9. Oral evidence of the prosecution:

9.1 The P.W 1 Mangalbhai Shanabhai Chauhan is the husband of the deceased. The P.W 1 in his evidence Exh.11 has deposed that the deceased was his wife. The accused was also residing in the same locality where the house of the P.W 1 is situated. According to the P.W 1, the accused had an evil eye on the deceased and wanted to rob the deceased of her chastity. Around fifteen days before the date of the incident, the P.W 1 had spoken to Kantibhai Mathurbhai, the son of the uncle of the accused, regarding the indecent behaviour of the accused towards the deceased. The P.W 1 has deposed that the accused did not pay heed even to the advice of Kantibhai Mathurbhai and continued to keep an evil eye on the deceased. On 13th May, 2007, while the P.W 1 and the deceased were at home, the deceased went behind her house to fetch some firewood for preparing tea and at that point of time, the P.W 1 and the other persons who were at his house heard the shouts of the deceased, and therefore, everyone rushed at the place and saw that the deceased was lying flat on the ground and the accused had pounced upon the deceased and was attempting to rape the deceased. The P.W 1 has deposed that the accused at the same time inflicted injuries with knife on the left hand side of her chest and other parts of the body. The P.W 1 has deposed that the accused hit almost five blows with the knife on the body of the deceased.

9.8 The P.W 8 Sukhiben Ishwarbhai Chauhan is also one of the eyewitnesses to the incident. The P.W 8, in her evidence Exh.32 has also deposed on the same line with that of the other eye witnesses. Nothing substantial could be elicited through the cross-examination of the P.W 8 so as to disbelieve her version as an eyewitness to the incident.

9.9 The P.W 9 Jagdishbhai Chauhan is the son of the deceased. The P.W 9 in his evidence Exh.33 has deposed that at the time of the incident he was not at his house, but had gone to the house of his wife. The P.W 9 has also deposed regarding the indecent behaviour on the part of the accused by keeping an evil eye towards his mother. As the P.W 9 is not an eyewitness, nothing substantial turns around on his evidence.

9.12 The P.W 12 Deepakbhai Chauhan is the owner of the rickshaw in which the deceased was taken to the hospital.

Nothing turns around on the evidence of this witness except the fact that the deceased was taken to the hospital in his rickshaw.

9.13 The P.W 13 Kantibhai Mathurbhai Chauhan is an important witness, as he is the person who had reprimanded the accused for his indecent behaviour towards the deceased on the request of the P.W 1. The P.W 13 in his evidence Exh.38 has deposed that the accused is the son of his uncle. The accused is residing next to his house. The P.W 13 has deposed that the P.W 1, the complainant also happenes to be a relative. According to the P.W 13, before two and a half months from the date of the incident, the P.W 1 had asked him to reprimand the accused, as he was keeping an evil eye on the deceased. The P.W 13 has deposed that he had, thereafter, rebuked the accused, but the accused did not improve. This witness is not an eyewitness to the incident, but has deposed regarding the intention of the accused to rob the deceased of her chastity. On the day of the incident, he had gone to the house of his daughter situated at village Charmala and had returned home at around 11 'O Clock in the night. On his return to home in the night, he learnt that the accused had inflicted injuries on the deceased with a knife and had passed away at the hospital. The P.W 13 has also deposed that on learning about the same, they all had ran away towards the sim of the village and returned home only after the body of the deceased was cremated. The P.W 13 has also deposed that on the day of the incident, Babubhai Bhalabhai, the P.W 14 had snatched away the knife from the hand of the accused and had concealed the same in a field. The P.W 13 has deposed that the reason for snatching away the knife from the hands of the accused was the fear that the accused might inflict injuries on the others with the same knife. He has deposed that after around 3 days from the date of the incident, when the Police came at the village, the P.W 14, Babubhai handed over the knife to the Police. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had no idea whether the accused had any illicit relations with the deceased. He has deposed that a month before the date of the incident, as the P.W 1 had asked him to rebuke the accused, he had accordingly done so. He has also deposed that when the knife, i.e. the weapon of offence was handed over to the Police, the accused was not present. He has also deposed that the fact that the P.W 14 had snatched away the knife from the hand of the accused was learnt by him through the others. Nothing substantial could be elicited through the cross-examination of this witness so as to disbelieve a part of the evidence that the accused had an evil eye on the deceased, and on the request of the P.W 1, he had rebuked the accused. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the P.W 13 as it appears that the accused happens to be the son of his own uncle. Despite such close relations, the P.W 13 has deposed regarding the motive behind the commission of the crime.