DHIRAJBHAI GORAKHBHAI NAYAK versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 25-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DHIRAJBHAI GORAKHBHAI NAY AK 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
JULY 25, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: Section 300 Exceptions I and 4 and Section 3021 
Criminal Trial: 
Murder-Deceased succumbed to injuries inflicted by the accused-
Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment-Affirmed by 
the High Court-On appeal, Held: Merely because name of one of the 
prosecution witnesses/eye witnesses did not figure in the FIR though it was 
lodged immediately after commission of the crime, that is not a suspicious 
D circumstance-Besides, psychic trauma/mental condition of witnesses and 
the close relatives of the deceased, can not be lost sight of-Testimony of the 
witnesses rightly found credible and cogent by the courts below-No infirmity 
therein was shown by the accused-Hence, evidence of the witnesses rightly 
relied upon by the courts below in convicting the accused 
E 
Exception l and 4 to Section JOO-Distinction between-Discussed 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Medical evidence vis-a-vis ocular evidence-Discrepancy between-
Held, When there was no discrepancy in the opinion of the doctors, one who 
F examined the deceased at the entry in the Hospital and the other who 
conducted post-mortem, it is not appropriate to exclude evidence of eye-
witnesses on this count. 
Words and Phrases: 
G 
'fight', 'quarrel', 'undue advantage'-Meaning of. in the context of 
Exceptions I and 4 to Section 300 /PC. 
Accused-appellant allegedly assaulted the deceased when he was sleeping 
along with his friend in the varandah of his house. On hearing the cries, his 
wife and son came out and raised an alarm. Accused fled away. Neighbours 
fl 
754 
D.G. NAY AK v. ST A TE OF GUJARAT 
755 
came to their rescue and they had taken the deceased to a hospital, where he A 
succumbed to his injuries. An FIR was lodged immediately. Police, after 
investigation of the matter, submitted the charge-sheet. Trial Court found 
accused guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC 
and sentenced him to.life imprisonment. High Court upheld the conviction 
and sentence. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that the wife (PW I) and friend (PW8) 
of the deceased, had illicit relationship and they themselves had assaulted the 
deceased which resulted in his death; that medical evidence established that 
B 
the injury received by the deceased could not have been caused by the weapon 
claimed to be the weapon of assault; that name of PW3, son of the deceased, C 
was absent in the FIR; that the blood stained clothes were not seized by the 
police; that the evidence of PW2, who resiled from his statement during 
investigation need not necessarily be wiped out completely and portion of the 
evidence which supports the case of prosecution/defence could be considered; 
that since crime was committed at dark night, claim of the wife and son of the 
deceased that they saw the accused assaulting the deceased was unacceptable; D 
and that even on accepting the prosecution case, Exception 4 to Section 300 
is applicable since assaults were made in the course of a quarrel between 
accused and the deceased. 
On behalf of the State, it was submitted that since evidence of the son 
and wife of the deceased had not been shaken in spite of the incisive cross-
examination, courts below rightly found their evidence reliable; that the 
medical evidence is not at variance with cogent ocular evidence; and that motive 
is not a determinative factor to decide about commission of a crime. 
Dismissing the appeal, thr Court 
HELD: 1.1. The First Information Report was lodged almost immediately 
after the occurrence of the crime. The. mental condition of the person who 
E 
F 
has just seen a close relative, the bread•earner, losing his life cannot be lost 
sight of. The psychic trauma cannot be ignored. Merely because the name of 
PW3 did not figure in the First Information Report, that is not a suspicious G 
circumstance. Evidence of PWs I and 3 has been analysed by both the Trial 
Court and the High Court minutely and found to be credible and cogent. 
Nothing infirm therein could be shown to weaken their acceptability and 
reliability. The Trial Court and the High Court were justified in placing 
reliance thereon.1759-F, HI 
H 
756 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Sri Bhagwan v. State of Rajas than, (2001 ( 6 sec 296, relied on. 
1.2. PW2 has been rightly described as untruthful by the Tr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.