LexAHER BHAGU JETHA versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l
B
c
D
£
D
AHER BHAGU JETHA
v.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
No1·ember 21, 1973
{M. H. BEG AND Y. V. CUANDR.ACHUD,JJ.]
417
frattict am( !'roudure -Criminal trial-Case with a communal back~:round-
Asmsmtnl of e~·Jdence.
.
A riot which was alleged to hnve a communal background re>ullcd in t~e death
of a person. The trial court convicted the. appellant and ~erne ~thcrs under s. 302
read 11ith s. 149. I.P.C. The H1gh Court, m appeal, conv•ctcd <'nly the aHcllant
onder s. 30Z. The High Court, while discarding t~e cu<oe of unlav.ful asumbly as
1er up by the prosecution held the appellant guilty of murder o nly recause the appe-
Uant was found lying injured ncar the scene of occurrence and bau pleaded that he
ns auackeJ by a group of members of the muslim community.
·
Allo11ing the appcnl to this Court,
HELD : The High. Court had not gh·en due importance to the fact that the
appellant had serious injuries on his body. The H igh Court dismissed his state·
ment that he had only a stick with him without eumining the et<dJhility cf his ,..,..
sion wh1ch was ~upport<d by the fact that only n stick wa.< found near bun; while
the only injury on the deceased wns caused by a sharp edged weap<'n
It ts not
=mmon in ca.<cs of a communal natu~ to find witneS>es coming for"asd to
d<pooc fal..:ly about ao attack by a person who is belie,·ed to be guilty, and, panisan
\itn= may depose falsely out of u mismken or misplaced sen<.e of grOUI' lo~~Jty
In the pr<sent r.ue. the panidpatlon of the appellant in the occur"'nce might ha~e
~to
the ~~oitoessa to have been established by his having born fourd ly10g ncar
the sc:ene of IX'CilrTellC" in an injured condition. This may be enough to convince
unsophoSiicated persons of b•s complicity in the murder, but a court of justice has to
~ft and analyse the C\idrn<:c very carefully, particulary in a case "ith a ccmmunal
bacl:graund. to determine whether the case against the accu"d i~ C>t :tbli~~cd ce)oncl
tt&>onablt doubt. {479E-F; 480B·D)
--
C'JIJM!NAL
APPH~ATE 1vRJfD:01l('N
15] of 1970,
Cr'miral Arrul N<'.
, Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated the
~Sth March 1970 of the Gujarat High Court nt Ahmedabad in Criminal
"PI\eal No. 517 of 1969.
N. P. Ma/res!nrari, fN the appellant.
S. N. Ana11d, M. N. S/Jrof! nnd S. P. Nu,yar, for tlte respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
rha Bto. J.:-The appellant, Ahir Bhagu Jet!Ja, is one of the IS p.:rsons
28thttd Wrth the o)Tcnce of rioting armed with deadly weapons, on
the S of June, 1?68, at about 7 ·30 p. m. nt the viii ago Kumbharia in
batk tate of GuJarat. This riot, which was alleged to h11ve a communal
pet'<i ground~ w~s suid to havo resulted in simple injuries to severar
~I··
00
~~ grJcvous inJ'uries to other< und the death of Lalmamad
•flaJI,
· •
l[
'the
~1J1t:d Sessions Judge of Kutch, who tried the ~nse,
a~quitted ~
bttn co Pt:r~ons and convicted the rest of various oflcnces sa.Jd to have
1... Jler~ns ~muted in the course of the riot. Out of those, stx.accused
·~2 Sup, o,?
4
111cluding tht: uppellant, were convicted. under Secuon 302.
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 s.c.tt.
I.P.C. read wi·h ~. 149, I. P. C. and ~'lntenced to im"risonment for
life. On an appC'al to th~ Hi~h Court flf Ol•jarat, the whole story
of riot, as ~ct up, w1n disb:-licvc:d. Seven convicttd J'1Crsons were
acauitted. The 1\J'tO•IJant nlonc was ~l"nvictcd under ~. 302, I. P. C.
and 'cntcnrc:d to life impri~rnment, Anrther acc1•~cd, whro die! nl"t
ap~eal. nnd. who was ccnvictcd vnder a, 324, I. P. C. nnTy ancf ~e-nten·
ced to 9 months rigorous imprisonmf.nt and to pay a .fine of Rs. 300/·
is not befC'rc us. We are, therefore, concerned only with th~ case
against Bhagu J'th11 who has b~cn convicted by th"' Hi~h Court
for an offence punishable under ~. 302. I. P. C., althou~h he was
~harged and convicttd of an dfencc punishable under s. 302 I. P. C.
only with the aid of s. 149 I. P. C. As the charge for rioting failed, he
was not and could not be convicted with the aid of s. l49I. P. C. No
separate charge was fram~d under s. 302 I. P. C. simpliciter.
We
need not consider the effect of the omission in this cue 1\S we arc
satisfied. for reasons given below, that the appeal must be allowed
on a bare examination of all~gations and evidence in the case.
The two groups, between which tension existed, prior to the
occurrence, consisted of Ahirs, who arc Hindu, and Sarna~. who areExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.