Court says presence of Accused on the spot identified undoubtedly and other instances proved against him; thus no ground to escape punishment
Criminal Appeal No. 1694 of 2009
Bench: Justice Fakkir Mohmed Ibrahim Kalifulla; Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Case Brief: The present appeal is brought against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court which has dismissed the Appeal of the appellant who were convicted and sentenced in the Sessions case for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the facts of the case, the appellant here and another (accused no. 2 in the original case) killed one Dalpat in the courtroom. It was shown by the prosecution that the said Dalpat was to attend the Sixth court, as accused in one of the case, as such he was standing with his co- accused in the corridor next the courtroom waiting for their term to be called out. At the same time appellant and accused no. 1 came running with sharp cutting weapons in their hands and when Dalpat apprehended danger he rushed into the courtroom, following him, both the accused and appellant also entered the courtroom and Dalpat was given sharp cutting injuries by both the accused persons and he collapsed near the dias. Prosecution examined 39 witnesses in the case, including doctor and others. The Trial Court after relying on the testimony of the eye witness account unfolded through PW- 28, PW- 20 and PW- 30 and other material on record, and held that the case of prosecution as against both of such accused persons fully proved. As such Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons under section 302 of the Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and some fine. In an appeal before the High Court, it was seen that the accused no. 1 died during the pendency of appeal and now remaining accused- appellant’s conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court. Now this bench observed that the presence of the PW 28 who being the Police officer was required to give evidence in the adjoining court, was quite natural, as such evidence inspires confidence about his presence at the time of occurrence.
Moreover, the bench also finds the present of PW 29 and 30. This bench after going through the evidence found every detail mentioned therein to be corroborated. As such, the submission against the presence of the said eye witness was rejected. The evidence of PW- 28 and PW- 30 show that these witnesses clearly identified both the accused. PW- 30 also studied in the same school was also naturally knowing and remembering the identity of both these accused. Thus, this bench decided that the findings of the Trial Court and High Court in the matter was completely correct and justified, as such the conviction and sentence of the appellant herein was affirmed.
Read the Judgement: Harijan Jivrajbhai Badhabhai Vs. State of Gujarat