Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. According to the prosecution case, one Virendrasinh Jhala, the brother of deceased Hemendrasinh @ Harry was running Shiv World Vision and the deceased was managing the same; that cable connection from control room of Shiv World Vision was given to sub-cable operator accused Hemantsinh @ Tino Manubhai Chavda (A-4)) and Mahendra @ Bhupatbhai Manubhai Chavda (A-1); that notices dated 8-10-2003 and 9-10-2003 were issued by Mamlatdar to these sub-cable operators as they did not pay entertainment tax, therefore, there was telephonic talk between deceased Hemendrasinh @ Harry and accused Mahendra @ Bhupatbhai Chavda (A-1) with regard to disconnect his cable connection; that on 9-10-2003 at about 7-00 Kirtisinh @ Rinku, son of accused Hemantsinh @ Tino Manubhai Chavda (A-4) went to the office of Shiv World Vision to discuss about cable disconnection and at about 8-30 p.m. accused Shaileshbhai Manubhai Chavda (A-2) went to the office of Shiv World Vision and had heated exchange of words in respect of cable disconnection; that accused Mahendra @ Bhupatbhai Manubhai Chavda (A-1) made a telephone call and invited deceased Hemendrasinh @ Harry to come to Udhyognagar Colony for discussion; that when deceased Hemendrasinh @ Harry with other persons was passing near a 'pan' shop at Employees' Insurance Centre at Udhyognagar Colony on motor-cycle at about 23-15 hours on 9-10-2003, accused armed with deadly weapons like sword, 'dhariya' and wooden log formed unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object to commit murder of Hemendrasinh @ Harry and others made assault on them; that accused Mahendra @ Bhupatbhai Manubhai Chavda (A-1) and accused Shaileshbhai Manubhai Chavda (A-2) caused serious injuries by sword on the head of Hemendrasinh @ Harry and accused Pratap Manubhai Chavda (A-3) and accused Ajit Tavde (A-5) inflicted blows by wooden log on the head of the deceased; that accused Hemantsinh @ Tino Manubhai Chavda (A-4) and his son juvenile accused Kirtisinh @ Rinku Chavda had 'dhariya and both of them tried to catch hold of the deceased; that accused Hemantsinh @ Tino Manubhai Chavda (A-4) had sword. On account of injuries, Hemendrasinh @ Harry died.

11. It may be recorded that accused Kirtisinh @ Rinku being minor at the time of the incident, his case has been referred to the Board constituted under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

12. Learned advocate Mr. Anandjiwala for the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 1397 of 2006 has submitted that according to the prosecution case, motive alleged behind the offence is entertainment notices allegedly issued by the authority and nonpayment of entertainment tax by the sub-cable operators, but there is no evidence that the accused were the sub-cable operators as alleged by the prosecution; that accused Mahendra @ Bhupatbhai Chavda (A-1) is running foundry and accused Shaileshbhai Manubhai Chavda (A-2) was not a sub-cable operator and remaining accused reside at Moti Khavdi, District Jamnagar, and therefore, the prosecution has also failed to establish motive behind the incident. He has also submitted that there is delay in lodging first information report and names of the accused were added step-by-step. He has also submitted that the evidence of P.W. 2 Jayesh Udeshi does not inspire confidence as there is no evidence of his treatment at Madhuram Hospital but was treated two days later at civil hospital and such treatment was taken only with a view to show that he was also injured and witness P.W. 3 Rasikbhai Dineshbhai Padhiyar is also a chance witness as he could not have been present at the time of incident. He has also submitted that there is interpolation in documents produced with Exh. 155 and discovery of weapons is by joint discovery panchnama and panchnamas do not indicate as to whether discoveries were made at the instance of the accused as they do not contain exact words used by accused. He has also submitted that the evidence with regard to demand of entertainment tax was not collected during investigation and was withheld by the prosecution and hence copies of such demands were produced by the accused therefore there was suppression of material evidence. He has submitted that P.W. 1 Chandrasinh did not give names of the assailants to the doctor when the injured were taken to hospital, and therefore, his evidence does not inspire confidence and there are discrepancies in the prosecution to connect accused Mahendra @ Bhupatbhai Manubhai Chavda (A-1) and Shaileshbhai Manubhai Chavda (A-2) with the offence. Hence, they are required to be given benefit of doubt.