KALABHAI HAMIRBHAI KACHHOT versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2021] 4 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 28-04-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
239
   [2021] 4 S.C.R. 239
239
KALABHAI HAMIRBHAI KACHHOT
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2015)
APRIL 28, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY,JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rw s. 34 – Murder – Previous
animosity between the parties – On the fateful day, accused persons
attacked the victim and two others with knives, resulting in victim’s
death, and injuries to other two - Conviction and sentence u/s. 302
rw s.34 and s. 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act – High Court while
upholding the conviction, extended benefit of s. 428 CrPC –
Interference with – Held: Not called for – On examination of entire
evidence of all the witnesses with reference to medical and other
evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution proved the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – All the accused committed
the offence with a common intention and all participated in
committing the crime – Role attributed to accused fully supported
by the injured witnesses as well as the deposition of investigation
officer – Testimony of the injured witness is natural and trustworthy
– Contradictions sought to be projected in the deposition of injured
witnesses are minor contradictions which cannot be the basis to
discard their evidence – Omissions like non-seizing of motorcycle
and gold chain of one of the victims, not a ground to discredit the
testimony of key witnesses who were consistent, natural and
trustworthy – Criminal trial – Evidence – Witnesses.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The view taken by the trial court in recording
the conviction against the appellants, as confirmed by the High
Court is upheld. Therefore, no interference is called for with the
concurrent findings recorded against the appellants. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
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 order is upheld. [Para 21][256-C-E]
The testimony of PWs-8 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 was
submitted 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. Furthermore, the accused
as well as the witnesses are of the same village, which appears to
be a small village and usually the persons residing in the village
meet frequently, there would 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 PW-1 who had deposed
that he was on duty in the Hospital on 10.11.2006. On that day in
the night, injured RM was brought to him by his nephew H, for
treatment with the complaint and stated that VR attacked him
and gave knife blow. The witness doctor issued injury certificate.
PW-2, is the doctor who performed postmortem of the deceased.
[Para 17][249-C-F]
The submission that there was no head injury, as deposed
by PWs-18 and 19 on the deceased and also as per the postmortem
report, as such the deposition of PWs- 18 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. It cannot be
expected 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. 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 PWs 18 and 19 is to be discarded.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
241
The doctor who has conducted the postmo

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