LexCAMILO VAZ versus STATE OF GOA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G CAMILO VAZ v. STATE OF GOA APRIL 10, 2000 [D.P. WADHWAAND RUMA PAL, JJ.] Criminal Law : Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302r!w120-B, 149, Sec. 307 r/w. 120B and 149, 143, 148 r!w 120B & 149-Appellant tried along with 17 accused for assaulting three persons-One died as a result of head injuries-Five includ- ing appellant convicted by Sessions Court on all offences-On appeal High Cou11 confirmed conviction and sentence imposed on Appellant-All the other four convicted under S.326-Sentences reduced to one already undergone-,- Blow likely to cause death-No intention to commit murder-Conviction under S.302 set aside-Held, in the circumstances offence would fall under S.304 Pan II only-Conviction and sentence modified. The Appellant alongwith 17 accused were tried for offences under Sections 302, 307, 325, 326, 143, 144, 140 IPC read with Section 149 and Section 120-B IPC for having co.mmitted the murder of one 'S' and for attempting to murder his brothers namely PW-6 and PW-8. The murder was a result of a fracas between the boy& of two neighbouring villages. i I . I Sessions Court convicted five of them including the Appellants holding them guilty of murder of 'S' under Section 302 read with Section 120-B and 149 IPC, Section 307 read with Secti,ms 120-B and 149 IPC and they were also held guilty of unlawful assembly under Section 143 and rioting under Section 148 read with Sections 120-B and 149 IPC. For these offences they were respectively sentenced to life imprisonment, 7 years imprisonment and 2 years imprisonment. No separate sentence was passed for an offence under Section 143 IPC. According to PW-4 injuries found on 'S' could.be caused by stick as also by bottles. He felt that in this case the object might be having ~ultiple rough and irregular edges because there were multiple injurj~. He said such edges were absent in bottles and sticks and injuries coulcl1 "therefore, H had been caused by stone. He was unable to say if injuries on 'S' could '" 1088 I 'l CAMILO VAZ v. STATE 1089 have been caused by throwing of a stone of about half a kg. weight. He said injuries on 'S' were several but localised in one region mainly on the left side of the forehead. Statement of PW-4 has been severally criticised by the Sessions Court. According to the Sessions Court the fracas, which occurred between these two rival gangs on the nights of 1.5.1993, 2.5.1993 and 4.5.1993 had been duly established. The Sessions Court was of the opinion that when the case rested on the direct evidence failure of the prosecution to prove the motive was not of much significance. Trial Court held that from the evidence led by the prosecution, it had been established that the assault on 'S' was made by the appellant and accused No. 16. Trial Court said that when there is assault by a large group of persons, it is not possible to get corroboration from the witnesses to see as to what assault was made by each of the accused. Trial Court was, however, of the opinion that the prosecution had been able to establish that it was the Appellant who was the author of the injury No. 1 on the person of deceased 'S' underneath which there were fractures, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was said that the danda blow was thus given with force on the head which is vital part of the body. Trial Court described injuries 2 to 5 and 9 on account of kicks given to deceased by accused No. 16. Cause of injuries No. 10 and 11 could not be established. Those had been caused by sharp and blunt weapons including danda. Trial Court further held that it was accuse~ No. 5 who assaulted PW-8 on his head. There were two injuries on the parietal regions found by PW-4 one of which had been caused by accused No. 5 and other by accused No. 7. Trial Court further held that the Appellant, accused No. 5, accused No. 7 and accused No. 15 assaulted PW-6 and caused injuries to him. All the five accused appealed to the High Court against their con- viction and sentence. High Court maintained the conviction and sentence of the Appellant under Section 302 IPC. Other four accused were con- victed under Section 326 IPC and their conviction for offence under Section 302 and 307 IPC were set aside. Their sentences were reduced to the imprisonment they had already undergone. High Court also rejected the alternate plea of the Appellant that on the facts of the case there cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.