2021 INSC 0235
Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    216     OF     2015
Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot …..Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat …..Respondent
W I T H
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.       453        OF     2021
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3227 of 2015]
A N D 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    290     OF     2018
J U D G M E N T
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3227 of 2015.
2. All   these   criminal   appeals   are   filed   against   the   common
judgment   dated   09.05.2014   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Gujarat   at
1

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.405 of 2010 and 459 of 2010, as
such,   they   are   heard   together   and   disposed   of   by   this   common
judgment.
3. Criminal   Appeal   No.290   of   2018   is   filed   by   accused   no.1   –
Vajashibhai   Ramshibhai   Kachhot;   Criminal   Appeal   arising   out   of
S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3227   of   2015   is   filed   by   accused   no.2   –   Mulubhai
Markhibhai   Nandaniya;   and   Criminal   Appeal   No.216   of   2015   is   filed
by   accused   no.3   –   Kalabhai   Hamirbhai   Kachhot.     For   the   sake   of
convenience,   the   appellants   in   the   above   appeals   shall   be   referred   to
as accused nos.1 to 3 hereafter.   
4.   The   aforesaid   appellants   were   the   accused   in   FIR   no.I­
215/2006   dated   11.11.2006   on   the   file   of   Keshod   Police   Station,
which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
326,   324   and   34   of   Indian   Penal   Code   (IPC)   and   Section   135   of   the
Bombay   Police   Act,   in   which   chargesheet   was   filed   on   07.02.2007   in
the court of First Class Magistrate, Keshod.   As much as the offences
were  triable by  Sessions Court, the  case was committed  to  the  Court
of   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Junagadh   and   the   accused   were   tried
for   the   aforesaid   offences   in   Sessions   Case   No.14   of   2007.     All   the
accused   were   convicted   for   the   offences   under   Section   302  read   with
34, IPC and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.   Accused no.1 –
2

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
Vajashibhai   Ramshibhai   Kachhot   –   was   found   guilty   for   offence
punishable under Section 302 read with 34, IPC and was sentenced to
undergo   life   imprisonment   and   to   pay   fine   of   Rs.10,000/­   and   in
default,   to   undergo   further   S.I.   for   12   months.     He   was   also   found
guilty   for   offence   punishable   under   Section   324,   IPC   and   was
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3000/­ and in default, to undergo further
S.I.   for   six   months.     He   was   also   found   guilty   for   the   offence
punishable   under   Section   135(1)   of   the   Bombay   Police   Act   and   was
sentenced   to   undergo   S.I.   for   four   months   and   to   pay   fine   of   Rs.100
and   in   default,   to   undergo   further   S.I.   for   ten   days.     Accused   no.2   –
Mulubhai   Markhibhai   Nandaniya   –   was   found   guilty   for   offence
punishable under Section 302 read with 34, IPC and was sentenced to
undergo   R.I.   for   life   and   to   pay   fine   of   Rs.10000/­   and   in   default,   to
further   undergo   S.I.   for   12   months.     He   was   also   found   guilty   for
offence   punishable   under   Section   135(1)   of   Bombay   Police   Act   and
was   sentenced   to   undergo   S.I.   for   four   months   and   to   pay   fine   of
Rs.100/­ and in default, to further undergo S.I. for ten days.  Accused
no.3   –   Kalabhai   Hamirbhai   Kachhot   –   was   found   guilty   for   offence
punishable under Section 302 read with 34, IPC and was sentenced to
undergo   R.I.   for   life   and   to   pay   fine   of   Rs.10000/­   and   in   default,   to
further   undergo   S.I.   for   12   months.     He   was   also   found   guilty   for
3

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
offence   punishable   under   Section   135(1)   of   Bombay   Police   Act   and
was   sentenced   to   undergo   S.I.   for   four   months   and   to   pay   fine   of
Rs.100/­   and   in   default,   to   further   undergo   S.I.   for   10   days.     The
learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the original accused nos.2 and
3   of   the   charges   under   Sections   326   and   324   read   with   34,   IPC.
Against   the   judgment   and   order   of   conviction   passed   by   the   learned
Sessions Court, accused nos.1 and 3 filed Criminal  Appeal No.459 of
2010   and   accused   no.2   filed   Criminal   Appeal   No.405   of   2010   before
the High Court.
5. The   High   Court,   by   the   impugned   common   judgment,   while
confirming the conviction, has partly allowed the appeals and ordered
that   all   the   sentences   imposed   against   the   accused   shall   run
concurrently and, by extending the benefit of Section 428 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, also ordered that the period of detention of the
accused as under­trial prisoners be set off against the sentence.  
6. On   10.11.2006,   one   Rajshibhai   Maldebhai   Karangiya,
resident of Bamnasa Ghed, Taluka Keshod, gave complaint before the
Sub­inspector ‘B’ Division, Junagadh stating that he lives at Bamnasa
Ghed with his family and is engaged in agricultural work and lives in
the orchard situated in sim of village Akha.   In his complaint, he has
stated   that   at   about   5:00   p.m.   on   10.11.2006   Rajshibhai   Maldebhai
4

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
Karangiya;   Mitesh   Hardasbhai   and   Gokalbhai   Karsanbhai   went   to
Keshod   for   some   work   on   Gokalbhai’s   Hero   Honda   motorcycle.
Gokalbhai   was   riding   the   motorcycle.     While   returning,   when   they
reached   near  to   orchard  of  Kalabhai   at  about  7:15   p.m.,   Vajashibhai
Ramshibhai, Mulubhai  Markhibhai and Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot
were   waiting   with   axe   and   knives.     In   order   to   stop   Rajshibhai
Maldebhai   Karangiya,   Mulubhai   gave   axe   blow,   which   hit   on
Gokalbhai’s   head,   due   to   which   Rajshibhai   Maldebhai   Karangiya,
Miteshbhai Hardasbhai and Gokalbhai fell down from the motorcycle.
Thereafter   the   three   accused   have   attacked   the   deceased   Gokalbhai
with   knives   and   when   Rajshibhai   Maldebhai   intervened,   Vajashibhai
gave knife blow on the head of Rajshibhai Maldebhai Karangiya.   It is
also alleged that Vajshibhai hit knife blow on the back side of head on
ear and hit Mitesh on left shoulder.   Gokalbhai became unconscious.
The   three   accused   then   ran   away   towards   Akha   on   Kalabhai’s
motorcycle.     Thereafter,   relatives   of   the   deceased   and   injured   were
called and they were shifted to Government Hospital where Gokalbhai
was   declared   dead   and   Rajshibhai   Maldebhai   and   Miteshbhai   were
given medical treatment.   It is also stated that the reason behind the
incident is that six months earlier to the date of incident there was a
quarrel   between   Vajshibhai   and   Mulubhai   with   Gokalbhai.     He   has
5

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
stated   in   the   complaint   that   the   present   incident   is   consequence   of
such rivalry between the accused and the deceased.  
7. Based  on  the   abovesaid   complaint,   crime  was  registered   and
after   necessary   investigation,   chargesheet   was   filed   before   the   Addl.
Sessions   Judge,   Junagadh.     Learned   Sessions   Judge   framed   charges
against   the   accused.     When   the   accused   pleaded   not   guilty   to   the
charges   and   claimed   trial,   they   were   tried   for   the   offences   alleged
against them.
8. To prove the charges framed against the accused, prosecution
has examined, in all, 32 witnesses and marked 61 documents and at
the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under
Section   313,   Cr.PC   and   after   hearing   the   arguments   of   prosecution
and   defence,   learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge   held   appellant­
accused   were   guilty   for   the   offences   and   awarded   sentence,   as
narrated above.  Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence
imposed   on   the   appellant­accused,   the   accused   nos.1   and   3   have
preferred   Criminal   Appeal   No.459   of   2010   and   original   accused   no.2
has preferred Criminal Appeal No.405 of 2010 before the High Court.
The   High   Court,   while   confirming   the   conviction,   has   extended   the
benefit   of   Section   428,   Cr.PC   and   allowed   the   appeals   partly   by
common judgment, only to the extent indicated above.
6

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
9. We   have   heard   Sri   Harin   P.   Raval,   learned   senior   counsel
appearing   for   the   appellant   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.216   of   2015;   Sri
D.N.   Ray,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   in   Criminal
Appeal   No.290   of   2018;   and   Sri   Nachiketa   Joshi,   learned   counsel
appearing   for   the   appellant   in   Criminal   Appeal   arising   out   of   S.L.P.
(Crl.)No.3227   of   2015   and   Ms.   Vishakha,   learned   counsel   appearing
for the respondent­State.
10. Sri   Harin   Raval,   learned   senior   counsel   has   contended   that
the   conviction   of   the   appellant­accused   is   mainly   based   on   the
testimony of PW­18 and PW­19, who are the injured eye witnesses.  It
is submitted that if their depositions are scrutinized closely, there are
major   contradictions.     It   is   submitted   that   they   are   the   chance
witnesses and their evidence is not trustworthy to base the conviction
of   the   appellant­accused.     Further,   it   is   submitted   that   there   is   no
mention about the nature of injuries in the postmortem report and the
motorcycle   used   in   the   crime   was   not   recovered.     It   is   further
contended that though it is the case of the prosecution that there was
a   head   injury   caused   by   the   accused   on   the   deceased,   there   is   no
corresponding   medical   injury   in   the   postmortem   Report   of   the
deceased.     It   is   submitted   that   the   medical   records   including
postmortem   report   are   not   reliable   and   the   prosecution   has   failed   to
7

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
prove   the   case   beyond   reasonable   doubt.     He   has   thus   requested   to
extend   the   benefit   of   doubt   to   the   accused   and   set   aside   their
conviction.     In   support   of   his   arguments,   learned   counsel   has   relied
on   the   judgments   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Anand   Ramachandra
Chougule   etc.   v.   Sidarai   Laxman   Chougala   &   Ors. 1
;   Akula   Veera
Venkata Surya Prakash @ Babi  v.  Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh 2
;  and  Mohinder Singh & Anr.   v.  State of Punjab &
Ors. 3
.
11. Learned   counsel   Sri   D.N.   Ray   appearing   for   the   appellant   in
Criminal   Appeal   No.290   of   2018   has   contended   that   though   a   fatal
injury   was   attributed   on   the   deceased,   caused   by   one   of   the
appellants,   there   were   no   blood   marks   on   PWs­18   and   19   who   are
stated   to   be   injured   witnesses   and   were   travelling   on   the   same
motorcycle of the deceased.  Further, it is submitted that the deceased
and injured were taken in Maruti car but there were no traces of blood
in  the  car.    No  blood  was   also  found  on   PWs­18  and  19  and  injuries
suffered   by   them   are   superficial.     It   is   further   submitted   that   the
alleged   incident   happened   at   about   07:30   p.m.   in   the   month   of
November, as such, there was no possibility of identifying the accused
1  (2019) 8 SCC 50
2  (2009) 15 SCC 246
3  (2004) 12 SCC 311
8

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
in the darkness.   Further it is submitted that no injury was found on
the head of the deceased as per the doctor’s deposition.   It is further
submitted that the alleged motive, that an amount of Rs.15000/­ was
payable   to   the   deceased,   was   no   basis   to   record   the   guilt   of   the
accused   as   the   said   incident   was   about   eight   months   earlier   to   the
date of the incident.
12. Shri   Nachiketa   Joshi,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
appellant  in   the   Criminal   Appeal   arising   out  of   S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3227   of
2015,   while   adopting   the   arguments   of   Sri   Harin   Raval   and   Sri   D.N.
Ray,   has   contended   that   though   there   is   no   acceptable   evidence   on
record,   the   appellant   was   convicted   for   the   offences   alleged.     He   has
submitted   that   if   overall   evidence   is   taken   into   consideration,   the
charges framed against the accused are not proved beyond reasonable
doubt and even the High Court has not considered the grounds raised
by   the   appellant­accused   in   proper   perspective   and   dismissed   the
appeals.
13. Per   contra,   Ms.   Vishakha,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
respondent­State has submitted that there are concurrent findings of
conviction against the appellants.   It is submitted that the trial court
itself has considered at length, the oral and documentary evidence on
record and has come to conclusion that the appellants were guilty for
9

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
the   offences   alleged   and   there   are   no   grounds   to   interfere   with   the
same.     It   is   further   submitted   that   accused   nos.1   and   3   were   found
with   knives   and   accused   no.2   caused   the   injury   on   the   deceased   by
hitting   on   his   head   with   axe   when,   all   three   were   travelling   on
motorcycle.     It   is   submitted   that   murder   of   the   deceased   was
committed by injuring PWs­18 and 19 with the common intention, as
such,  they were  rightly  found  guilty  by  the Sessions  Court.    Further,
learned counsel, by referring to the deposition of PW­21 who was the
person   first   to   reach   the   place   of   occurrence,   i.e.,   the   brother   of   the
deceased,   has   submitted   that  postmortem   report   indicates   the   injury
on   the   lower   back   side   of   the   head.     Further,   submitting   that   the
identity of the accused cannot be questioned as all are known to each
other and are of the same village.  She has further submitted that the
medical  and  ocular  evidence  supports the  case of the  prosecution,  to
prove   the   case   against   the   accused.     The   learned   counsel   has   lastly
contended that discrepancies, if any, in the depositions are minor and
same will not affect the case of the prosecution.   The learned counsel
placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of  Mohar &
Anr.  v.  State of U.P. 4
 and  State of Uttar Pradesh  v.  Naresh & Ors. 5
.
4  (2002) 7 SCC 606
5  (2011) 4 SCC 324
10

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
14. In reply, Sri Harin Raval, learned senior counsel and Sri D.N.
Ray,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant­accused   have
submitted that the alleged incident has occurred at about 07:30 p.m.
on   10.11.2006   and   even   according   to   evidence,   PWs­18   and   19
remained at the site of the occurrence for about 45 minutes, which is
unusual.  It is submitted that in a situation like this, PWs­18 and 19,
who   suffered   injuries,   should   have   made   an   attempt   to   shift   the
deceased   to   the   nearest   hospital   immediately.     Referring   to   the
deposition   of   PWs­18   and   19   in   cross­examination,   it   is   submitted
that   such   injuries   suffered   by   PWs­18   and   19,   can   be   self­inflicted.
Further   reiterating   that   the   discrepancies   noticed   in   the   depositions
are   major,   hence,   benefit   of   doubt   has   to   go   to   the   appellants   and
prayed for acquittal of the accused.
15. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   on   both   sides,   we   have
perused   the   judgment   of   the   trial   court   as   well   as   that   of   the   High
Court and other material placed on record.
16. Upon   close   scrutiny   of   the   evidence   on   record   and   the
findings  recorded  by  the   trial  court,   as   confirmed   by   the  High   Court,
we do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellant­accused, to interfere with the conviction recorded by the
trial Court, as confirmed by the High Court.
11

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
17. To   prove   the   charges   framed   against   the   appellants,   the
prosecution has examined 32 witnesses and marked 61 documents as
exhibits,   during   the   trial.     Among   the   other   witnesses   examined   on
behalf   of   the   prosecution,   Rajshibhai   Maldebhai   Karangiya,   who   was
with the deceased at the time of incident, was examined as PW­18.  In
his deposition he has stated that the incident occurred at about 07:30
in   the   evening   on   Bamnasa­Akha   road   on   10.11.2006.     On   that  day,
he,  along  with  Miteshbhai  and  Gokalbhai  (deceased),  went  to Keshod
on   Hero   Honda   motorcycle   at   about   05:00   O’clock   in   the   evening.
Gokalbhai   was   driving   the   motorcycle   and   thereafter   at   about   06:45
p.m.   Gokalbhai’s   brother   Vajshibhai   made   a   phone   call   to   Gokalbhai
and   stated   that   he   wants   motorcycle   to   go   for   some   other   work   and
requested him to come back if his work is completed.   Therefore, they
proceeded   from   Keshod   to   Village   Bamnasa   and   when   they   reached
near   the   farm   of   Kalabhai   –   a   policeman,   Vajshibhai   Ramshibhai
armed with knife, Mulubhai Markhibhai armed with axe and Kalabhai
Hamirbhai   armed   with   knife   were   standing   across   the   road   to   stop
them.     When   Gokalbhai   slowed   down   the   vehicle,   Mulubhai
Markhibhai   gave   axe   blow   on   the   head   of   Gokalbhai   and,   therefore,
they fell down from the motorcycle and thereupon the accused started
giving blows with axe and knife to Gokalbhai haphazardly.  Further it
12

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
is   also   deposed   that  when   he   and   Mitesh   tried   to   interfere,   they   also
suffered   injuries.     Thereafter   he   made   a   phone   call   to   Masaribhai   at
Bamnasa from  his  mobile  and  requested  him  to   come  to  the  place  of
incident   with   vehicle.     Therefore,   after   sometime,   Rajubapu   Bavaji
came with Maruti van and Samat Govind and Vajsi Karsan were with
Rajubapu.     Even   as   per   the   say   of   this   witness   the   reason   for   the
incident   is   the   altercation,   between   Gokalbhai   and   Vajashibhai   with
regard to rent of Rs.15000/­, which occurred six months prior to the
occurrence,   of   which   complaint   was   lodged   in   Junagadh   Police
Station.     Other   person,   who   was   with   the   deceased   on   the   day   of
occurrence was Mitesh Hardas Kachhot – PW­19, has also deposed on
similar lines as that of PW­18.   The testimony of PWs­18 and 19 who
were   with   the   deceased   on   the   day   of   occurrence   and   who   were
travelling   on   the   same   motorcycle,   is   quite   natural   and   trustworthy.
Though   it   is   the   contention   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant­
accused   that   as   the   incident   happened   in   the   month   of   November   it
was   not   possible   to   identify   the   assailants   in   the   darkness,   at   the
same time it is clear from the evidence on record that the headlight of
the vehicle was ‘on’ and it is evident from the record and   panchnama
of   the   place   of   occurrence   that   there   was   a   light   which   was   there   on
the   Vadi.     It   is   further   to   be   noticed   that   the   accused   as   well   as   the
13

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
witnesses are of the same village, which appears to be a small village
and usually  the persons residing in the village  meet frequently, there
will  not be any difficulty in identifying the persons.   Therefore, as far
as   the   identification   of   the   accused   is   concerned,   the   same   is   well
supported by the evidence on record.   The prosecution also examined
Dr. Nikhilkumar Buch – PW­1 – who has deposed that he was on duty
in   Civil   Hospital,   Junagadh   on   10.11.2006.     On   that   day   at   about
10:40   hrs.   in   the   night,   injured   Rajshi   Malde   was   brought   to   him   by
his   nephew   Hitesh   Hardas,   for   treatment   with   the   complaint   and
stated   that   Vajshi   Ramshi   attacked   him   and   gave   knife   blow.     The
witness   doctor   has   issued   injury   certificate   which   is   exhibited   as
Exh.18.   Dr. Prafulaben Mohanlal Dhabariya was examined as PW­2,
who has performed postmortem of the deceased.  The said witness has
found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :
“i)     There   was     one   cut,   incised   wound   which   was
transverse,   in   mid   way   of   left   thigh.   It   was   upto   skin
and muscle. It was elliptical in shape and 5 inch long,
1 and ½	 inch wide and 	¾	 inch deep.
ii)     There   was   cut   incised   wound   over   left   chest,   left   6th
inter­coastal   space   starting   from   mid   clavicular   line
and was going downwards and laterally. It is 2 and 	
½
inch long, 	
¾	 inch wide and penetrates the cavity. The
wound   track   is   tapering   and   infiltrated   with   blood.
There is no exit wound. It penetrates the rear and left
ventricular wall. 
14

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
iii)     There   was   incised   wound   at   the   level   of   the   hair   line
over   the   neck   posteriorly   measuring   3   inch   long
starting  from  ½	 inch   from  the  midline   on  the  left  and
extending   transversely   to   the   right.   The   wound   is  	
½
inch wide,  cuts through  skin,  muscles and  grazes  the
cervical vertebra. Bleeding noted. 
iv)     There   was   was   incised   wound   over   right   side   of   neck
below above injury laterally measuring 1 x 	
½	 x 	½	 inch
long x wide x deep.
v)     There was incised wound parallel to above 	
½	” below it
measuring 1” x 	
½	” x 	½	”.
vi)     There   was   incised   wound   just   above   right   scapula   at
base of neck starting 1” lateral to the vertebral margin
and extending laterally and transversely and upwards.
It   is   2”   long,   1”   wide   and   penetrates   the   chest   cavity.
The wound is tapering upwards. It penetrates the right
upper lung lobe. 
vii)     There   was   incised   wound   over   right   scapula   region
medially   measuring   1”x   1/2”   x   1/2”   cutting   through
skin and muscle, next to vertebral margin, transverse.
viii)     There   was   incised   wound   over   right   scapula   region
about centrally and transversely measuring 1	
½	” x 1”
x 	
½	”. 
ix)       There   was   incised   wound   over   right   chest   just   below
right   scapula   vertically   and   at   border   of   scapular
measuring   1  	
½	”   x   1”   x  	½	”   cutting   through   skin   and
muscle. 
x)    There was incised wound lateral to above wound, also
parallel   to   above   wound,   2”   distant   from   it   and
measuring   1  	
½	  “x   1”   x  	½	”   cutting   through   skin   and
muscle.
15

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
xi)     There   was   incised   wound   and   lateral   and   parallel   to
above,  2”   distant  from   it,  measuring  1  ½	  “x  1”x  1/2”
cutting through skin and muscle.
xii)   There   was   incised   wound   over   right   back,   10th
intercostal space transverse, measuring 2”x1” x 	
½	”.
xiii)     There   was   incised   wound   over   left   scapula,   at   the
base,   vertical   wound   measuring   2”   x   1”   x  	
½	”   deep
cutting through skin and muscle.
xiv)   Incised   wound   at   level   of   T12,   transverse   wound
measuring   3  	
½	  “x   1”   and   cutting   through   skin,
muscles and grazing bone. 
xv)   Incised   wound   at   level   of   L2,   transverse   wound
measuring   1  	
½	  “x   1”   x  	½	”   cutting   through   skin   and
muscle.
xvi)   Incised   wound   at   level   of   L5­S1   transverse   wound
measuring 3” x 	
½	” and cutting through skin, muscles
and grazing bone. 
xvii)   Incised   wound   over   sacral   region,   vertical,   midline
measuring 1” x1/2” x 	
½	”, muscle deep.
xviii)   Incised   wound   over   sacral   region,   vertical,   midline
measuring   1”x  	
½	”   x  	½	”,   2”   below   above   wound
muscle deep.
xix)       Incised   incised   wound   about   1”   below   injury   no   16,
lateral to it measuring 1” x 	
½	 “x 1/2”.”
In   his   deposition,   with   reference   to   abovesaid   injuries,   he   has   also
opined  that  all   the  injuries   are  ante­mortem.     The  injuries  which   are
referred to, are stated to have been enclosed in the postmortem note.
Sri Jagdishbhai Sarmanbhai Kamaliya, who was the   panch   witness of
16

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
the   panchmana   of   the   dead   body,   was   examined   as   PW­5.     Sri
Hardasbhai   Bhikhabhai   Bhetariya   was   examined   as   PW­6   who   was
panch   witness   to   the   scene   of   offence.     The   prosecution   has   also
examined   Masharibhai   Govindbhai   Karangiya   as   PW­20.     In   his
deposition he has stated that on the date of incident when he was at
his   field,   he   received   a   phone   call   of   Rajshi   Malde   at   about   07:30   in
the   evening   stating   the   incident   and   assault   on   them   and   he   was
informed to come with Maruti van of Rajubapu and thereafter he has
gone to village on his motorcycle.  As he could not meet Rajubapu, he
contacted   Rajubapu   on   phone   and   requested   him   to   come   with   his
Maruti   van   to   the   field   of   Kalabhai   immediately   which   is   situated   on
the road of Aakha.   He has clearly stated in his deposition that when
he   reached   the   spot,   he   has   noticed   the   injuries   on   Miteshbhai   and
Rajashi Malde and Gokalbhai was lying in bleeding condition.  He has
also   stated   that   there   was   a   lamp   in   the   field   of   Kalabhai,   light   of
which   was   falling   on   the   road.     The   brother   of   the   deceased   was
examined   as   PW­21.     In   his   deposition   he   has   also   stated   that   as
Gokalbhai has taken the Hero Honda motorcycle and as the same was
required   by   him   to   go   out   of   station   on   the   motorcycle,   he   made   a
phone call to Rajashi on his mobile no.9825921960 through the coin
drop box phone from the shop of Nathubhai in the village.   Even this
17

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
witness has  stated that the reason for  the  incident is  that Gokalbhai
unloaded   the   soil   in   the   field   of   Vajashibhai   Ramshi   through   his
tractor   and   the   amount   of   Rs.15000/­   towards   rent   thereof   was
outstanding   from   him.     It   is   stated   that   as   there   was   discord   in   this
regard,   the   incident   has   occurred,   which   resulted   in   the   murder   of
Gokalbhai.     Sri   Rajeshbhai   Jethabhai   Parmar   who   has   investigated
the crime, was examined as PW­31.  He also clearly stated in detail in
his deposition regarding the incident.
18. The   submission   of   the   learned   counsels,   that   there   was   no
head injury, as deposed by PWs­18 and 19 on the deceased and also
as  per  the  postmortem   report,  as  such   the  deposition  of  PWs­18  and
19   is   to   be   discarded,   cannot   be   accepted   for   the   reason   that   the
postmortem report indicates injury on the lower back side of the head.
An attempt was made to assault the deceased with an axe.  We cannot
expect that it has to be hit on the centre of the head.  It has fallen on
the lower back side of the head, same is evident from the postmortem
report.     At   this   stage,   it   is   to   be   noted,   that   the   attack   was   made   on
the deceased and injured, when they were moving on motor cycle.  As
such, it cannot be said that merely because there is no injury on the
centre of the head, the testimony of PWs­18 and 19 is to be discarded.
The doctor who has conducted the postmortem, has also clearly stated
18

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
in his deposition that all injuries which were noticed on the deceased
were   ante   mortem.     If   the   entire   evidence   of   all   the   witnesses   is
examined with reference to medical and other evidence on record, it is
clear that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable   doubt.     All   the   accused   have   committed   the   crime   with   a
common intention.   It is clear from the record that the role attributed
to accused nos.1, 2 and 3 is fully supported by the injured witnesses
as   well   as   the   deposition   of   investigation   officer.     Though   the   key
witness, were cross­examined at length, nothing adverse was elicited.
If the testimony of PW­20, i.e., Masharibhai is examined, same is fully
supported  by  the  evidence  of  PW­18,  19 and  21.   It  is  clear  from  the
evidence   on   record   that   their   testimony   is   natural   and   trustworthy
and so far as PWs­18 and 19 are concerned it cannot be said that they
are the chance witnesses.  Even the injuries sustained by PWs­18 and
19   are   not   self­inflicted   as   per   the   opinion   of   the   medical   expert.
Further,   it   is   also   clear   from   the   opinion   of   the   doctor   who   was
examined,   that   all   the   injuries   were   possible   with   muddammal   knife
and axe.  It is further to be noticed that serological report from which
the  blood  group  was  found  on  the  cloths  of  the  deceased  and  that of
the   accused   nos.1   and   2   is   the   same.     Even   with   regard   to   the
presence   of   accused   no.3,   it   is   also   clear   considering   the   entire   oral
19

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
evidence on record that his presence on the spot is also proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
19. We   also   do   not   find   any   substance   in   the   argument   of   the
learned  counsel that there are  major  contradictions  in the  deposition
of   PWs­18   and   19.     The   contradictions   which   are   sought   to   be
projected   are   minor   contradictions   which   cannot   be   the   basis   to
discard   their   evidence.       The   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Mohar 4
  relied   on   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent­State
supports the case of the prosecution.   In the aforesaid judgment, this
Court   has   held   that   convincing   evidence   is   required,   to   discredit   an
injured witness.  Para 11 of the judgment reads as under :
“11.   The   testimony   of   an   injured   witness   has   its   own
efficacy and relevancy. The fact that the witness sustained
injuries on his body would show that he was present at the
place   of   occurrence   and   has   seen   the   occurrence   by
himself.   Convincing   evidence   would   be   required   to
discredit   an   injured   witness.   Similarly,   every   discrepancy
in the statement of a witness cannot be treated as fatal. A
discrepancy   which   does   not   affect   the   prosecution   case
materially  cannot  create   any   infirmity.   In  the   instant  case
the discrepancy in the name of PW 4 appearing in the FIR
and   the   cross­examination   of   PW   1   has   been   amply
clarified.  In   cross­examination   PW   1  had  clarified   that  his
brother Ram Awadh had three sons: ( 1 ) Jagdish, PW 4, ( 2 )
Jagarnath,   and   ( 3 )   Suresh.   This   witness,   however,   stated
that   Jagarjit   had   only   one   name.   PW   2   Vibhuti,   however,
stated   that   at   the   time   of   occurrence   the   son   of   Ram
Awadh,   Jagjit   @   Jagarjit   was   milching   a   cow   and   he   was
20

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
also called as Jagdish. Balli (PW 3) mentioned his name as
Jagjit and Jagdish. PW 4 also gave his name as Jagdish.”
Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent­State   has   also   relied   on   the
judgment of this Court in the case of  Naresh & Ors. 5
.  In the aforesaid
judgment,   this   Court  has   held   that  the   evidence   of   injured   witnesses
cannot   be   brushed   aside   without   assigning   cogent   reasons.
Paragraphs   27   and   30   of   the   judgment   which   are   relevant,   read   as
under : 
“27.   The evidence of an injured witness must be given due
weightage   being   a   stamped   witness,   thus,   his   presence
cannot be  doubted. His statement is generally  considered
to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the
actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else.
The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy
and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time  and
place   of   occurrence   and   this   lends   support   to   his
testimony   that   he   was   present   during   the   occurrence.
Thus,   the   testimony   of   an   injured   witness   is   accorded   a
special  status  in law. The  witness  would  not  like or  want
to   let   his   actual   assailant   go   unpunished   merely   to
implicate a third person falsely for the commission of  the
offence.   Thus,   the   evidence   of   the   injured   witness   should
be   relied   upon   unless   there   are   grounds   for   the   rejection
of   his   evidence   on   the   basis   of   major   contradictions   and
discrepancies   therein.   (Vide   Jarnail   Singh   v.   State   of
Punjab   [(2009)   9   SCC   719   :   (2010)   1   SCC   (Cri)
107] ,   Balraje   v.   State of Maharashtra   [(2010) 6 SCC 673 :
(2010)   3   SCC   (Cri)   211]   and   Abdul   Sayeed   v.   State   of
M.P.   [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] )
…  … … …
… … … …
21

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
30.   In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound
to   occur   in   the   depositions   of   witnesses   due   to   normal
errors   of   observation,   namely,   errors   of   memory   due   to
lapse   of   time   or   due   to   mental   disposition   such   as   shock
and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions
amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about
the   truthfulness   of   the   witness   and   other   witnesses   also
make   material   improvement   while   deposing   in   the   court,
such   evidence   cannot   be   safe   to   rely   upon.   However,
minor   contradictions,   inconsistencies,   embellishments   or
improvements   on   trivial   matters   which   do   not   affect   the
core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground
on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The
court   has   to   form   its   opinion   about   the   credibility   of   the
witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition
inspires confidence.
“ 9 . Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle.
But   it   can   be   one   of   the   factors   to   test   credibility   of   the
prosecution   version,   when   the   entire   evidence   is   put  in   a
crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.”
[ Ed. :   As   observed   in   Bihari   Nath   Goswami   v.   Shiv   Kumar
Singh , (2004) 9 SCC 186, p. 192, para 9.]
Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a
witness   cannot   be   dubbed   as   improvements   as   the   same
may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness
earlier.  The   omissions   which  amount  to   contradictions  in
material   particulars   i.e.   go   to   the   root   of   the
case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's
case,   render   the   testimony   of   the   witness   liable   to   be
discredited. [Vide   State   v.   Saravanan   [(2008) 17 SCC 587 :
(2010)   4   SCC   (Cri)   580   :   AIR   2009   SC
152],   Arumugam   v.   State   [(2008)   15   SCC   590   :   (2009)   3
SCC   (Cri)   1130   :   AIR   2009   SC   331]   ,   Mahendra   Pratap
Singh   v.   State   of   U.P.   [(2009)   11   SCC   334   :   (2009)   3   SCC
(Cri)   1352]   and   Sunil   Kumar   Sambhudayal   Gupta
(Dr.)   v.   State   of   Maharashtra   [(2010)   13   SCC   657   :   JT
(2010) 12 SC 287] .”
22

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
Further,   in   the   case   of   Narayan   Chetanram   Chaudhary   &   Anr.   v.
State   of   Maharashtra 6
,   this   Court   has   considered   the   effect   of   the
minor   contradictions   in   the   depositions   of   witnesses   while
appreciating the evidence in criminal trial.   In the aforesaid judgment
it   is   held   that   only   contradictions   in   material   particulars   and   not
minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the
witnesses.     Relevant   portion   of   Para   42   of   the   judgment   reads   as
under: 
“42.   Only   such   omissions   which   amount   to   contradiction
in   material   particulars   can   be   used   to   discredit   the
testimony   of   the   witness.   The   omission   in   the   police
statement   by   itself   would   not   necessarily   render   the
testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by
the witness in the court is different in material particulars
from   that   disclosed   in   his   earlier   statements,   the   case   of
the   prosecution   becomes   doubtful   and   not   otherwise.
Minor   contradictions   are   bound   to   appear   in   the
statements   of   truthful   witnesses   as   memory   sometimes
plays false and the sense of observation differ from person
to  person.   The  omissions  in   the  earlier   statement  if   found
to   be   of   trivial   details,   as   in   the   present   case,   the   same
would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW 2. Even if
there   is   contradiction   of   statement   of   a   witness   on   any
material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the
testimony of such witness.
… … …”
20. By   applying   the   aforesaid   ratio,   as   laid   down   by   this   Court
coupled   with   the   evidence   on   record,   we   are   clearly   of   the   view   that
6  (2000) 8 SCC 457
23

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
the prosecution has proved the case against all the appellant­accused
beyond   reasonable   doubt.     The   omissions   like   not   seizing   the
motorcycle and also not seizing the gold chain of one of the victims, by
itself,   is   no   ground   to   discredit   the   testimony   of   key   witnesses   who
were examined on behalf of the prosecution, whose say is consistent,
natural and trustworthy. 
21. In that view of the matter, we are fully in agreement with the
view   taken   by   the   trial   court   in   recording   the   conviction   against   the
appellants,   as   confirmed   by   the   High   Court.     Therefore,   no
interference is called for with the concurrent findings recorded against
the   appellants.     As   discussed   earlier   it   is   also   clear   that   there   was   a
quarrel between the deceased about six months earlier to the incident
and   one   accused   regarding   payment   of   rent   of   tractor.     Further   it   is
brought   on   record   that   there   was   animosity   between   them   which   is
the   motive   for   the   crime.     As   such,   the   prosecution   has   established,
beyond   reasonable   doubt,   that   all   the   accused   have   committed   the
offence   with   a   common   intention   and   participated   in   committing   the
crime.     The   trial   court   as   well   as   the   High   Court   has   not   committed
any   error   in   law   or   on   facts,   as   such,   the   same   are   required   to   be
upheld   by   this   Court.     As   far   as   the   judgments   relied   on   by   the
learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, having regard to the
24

Crl.A.No.216  of 2015 etc.
facts   of   the   case   and   the   evidence   on   record,   we   are   of   the   view   that
the abovesaid judgments would not render any assistance to support
the case of the appellants.
22. For   the   aforesaid   reasons,   we   do   not   find   any   merit   in   these
appeals, same are accordingly dismissed.
………………………………J.
[Ashok Bhushan]
………………………………J.
[R. Subhash Reddy]
New Delhi.
April  28, 2021.
25