JASHUBA BHARATSINH GOHIL AND ORS . versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 13-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
JASHUBA BHARATSINH GOHIL AND ORS . 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
APRIL 13, 1994 
[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND DR. AS. ANAND, JJ.] 
B 
i' 
Criminal Procedure Cnde 1973-Scction 354(3{-Dcath sentence-
Where trial court has given elaborate reasons for awarding life imprisonment, 
held, the High Court was not justified in enhancing punishment to death 
sentence only because it looked at those reasons differently. 
c 
Indian penal Code 186(}-Sections 302, 3021149, 307/149. 
Four accused not named in FIR, and none of the prosecution .witnesses 
ascribing any particular role to them-Held, entitled to be given benefit of 
doubt and acquitted-Conviction of seven other accused maintained. 
D 
Practice and procedure-One accused not filing appeal-lnfinnities 
attaching to the case of three other accused applying to him a/so-Held, 
cannot be denied benefit of judgment. 
Twelve accused were tried by the Sessions Court for offences punish· E 
able under Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 307, 148 IPC read with 
Section 149, Section 143 and in the alternative under Sections 302, 307/34 
!PC and Section 25A of the Arms Act. Ten persons were killed in the 
incident which took place on 20th September 1984, and four persons were 
injured. 
F 
l 
The prosecution's case in brief was that there was prior enmity 
between the accused - party and the complainant-party and that the 
former hatched a conspiracy to wreak vegeance by assaulting the latter. It 
was alleged that when the complainant party was returning from a con- G 
-
dolence function, the accused party which had formed an unlawful assemb-
ly, lay in wait armed with deadly weapons like gun, spear, axe etc. When 
the tractor and trailer carrying the complainant party reached the place 
where the accused were hiding, A-11 fired from his gun to deflate the tyre 
of the tractor and brought it to a halt. The remaining accused came out 
from hiding and began assaulting the persons in the tractor. Gunshots H 
471 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A were also fired and persons who sought to escape were chased and beaten. 
B 
After returning from the village the accused continued to fire shots. 
The Trial Court found all the accused guilty under Section 302 and 
section 302 read with section 149 IPC, and of lesser offences. All the 
accused were sentenced to life imprisonment. 
All the accused filed an appeal in the High Court. The State filed an 
appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence of life-imprisonment to death. 
The High Court confirmed the conviction of all the accused except A 4 who 
~ 
was acquitted. It partly allowed the appeal of the state and enhanced the 
C sentence oflife imprisonment on A 11 to a sentence of death. The sentence 
of life imprisonment on the other accused was maintained. 
All the convicted persons except A 10 appealed to this Court by 
special leave. 
D 
Acquitting A2, A3, A6 and AlO by giving the benefit of doubt, and 
E 
redncing the death sentence on All to life imprisonment, this court 
HELD : 1. The prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and specific in 
so far as the involvement of accused other than A2, A3, A6 and AlO are 
concerned. The appreciation of evidence by the courts below bas impressed 
us, and we agree with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the 
courts below as regards their guilt. The eye-witness account is specific. 
Despite lengthy cross-examination of the eye-witnesses notbing has been 
brought out from the record to create any doubt about the credit wortbi· 
ness of the testimony of any of the prosecution witnesses. The recoveries 
F 
made from them pursuant to the disclosure statements which have not 
been doubted, coupled with the medical evidence, show that the prosecu-
tion has established its case against them beyond every reasonable donbt. 
[479-B-C, 481-B] 
2. It is not not disputed that the complainant knew A2, A3, A6 and 
G AlO as well as he knew the other accused persons. The complainant being 
an injured witness is a stamped witness and it is significant that he did 
not name Al, A3, A6 and AlO as members of the accused party in the first 
information reprot lodged soon after the occurrence. In bis statement 
recorded by PW-11 the Executive Magistrate also, the comlainant did not 
H name A2, A3, A6 and AlO as having taken any part in the assault. Thongh 
J.B. GOHIL v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
473 
In the said statement it was mentioned that there were four other. persons, A 
it is difficult to understand as to

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