LexRAJPUT JABBARSINGH MALAJI versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 6 S.C.R. 978 RAJPUT JABBARSINGH MALAJI v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2006) MAY 24, 2011 [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c s.302 - Murder- Accused causing severe axe blow on the face of victim, resulting in his death - Conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life upheld by High Court - HELD: From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, recovery of blood stained scarf of accused and blood stained axe at 0 the instance of the accused, the FSL report and the evidence of the wife of deceased corroborated by the medical evidence, it could not be disputed that the deceased had met the homicidal death on account of severe wounds on his face caused by the accused with the axe - In this view of the matter, E there is no scope for any interference with the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below. Evidence Act, 1872: s. 6 - Res gestae witnesses - Name of assailant not F mentioned in FIR - Subsequently, the wife of deceased disclosed to two witnesses the name of the assailant with full description of the incident - Witnesses in tum disclosing the name of the assailant in their statements u/s 161 CrPC - HELD: The two witnesses would be res gestae witnesses - The G evidence of the wife of the deceased and other witnesses stands fully corroborated with each other's version - Their evidence is of sterling quality and deserves to be accepted - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302. The appellant-accused was prosecuted for H 978 RAJPUT JABBARSINGH MALAJI v. STATE OF 979 GUJARAT commission of offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. The A prosecution case was that on the night of the incident, at about 2.00 a.m., PW-3 raised shouts for help. On hearing the same, PW-2 and other family members reached there and found that PW-3 was crying to save her husband, the brother of PW-2. PW-2 found that his B brother had received severe injuries on his face and was bleeding profusely. The victim was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. Thereafter PW-2 lodged a comi:>laint that some one _had assaulted his brother with an axe and had run away. After the victim c had been taken to the hospital, PW-3 informed PW-5 and PW-6, the other brothers of the victim, that the injury was caused on the person of the victim by the accused with an axe. The two witnesses also told PW-3 that while entering the filed, they had also seen the accused going D away with an axe in his hand. PW-5 and WP-6, in .their statements u/s 161 mentioned this fact. The accused made disclosure statements leading to recovery of his blood stained scarft and a blood stained axe from the place shown by him. The trial court convicted the E accused of the offence charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High Court upheld the conviction and the sentence. Aggrieved, the accused filed the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. Though before taking the victim to the hospital, PW -3 had not disclosed the name of the appellant as assailant to anyone including the complainant who had lodged the FIR, but she has offered an explanation that at that time her uppermost anxiety G was to take her injured husband to the hospital for treatment, therefore, the name of the appellant could not be mentioned in the FIR. Only after the victim was taken to the hospital, PW-3 informed PW"5 and PW-6, the brothers of the deceased, that ,the injury was caused on H ,• . . , ' . 980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R. A the person of the deceased by the appellant with an axe. B Their statements were recorded u/s 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure soon after the incident and this fact is clearly borne out from the records. (para 6 and 1 O] [983- F-H; 984-A; 985-A-B] 1.2. It has neither been challenged before this Court nor was challenged before the High Court or the trial court that the deceased had met with homicidal death, which even otherwise stands proved from the evidence of PW-1, who had performed the postmortem of the dead C body of the deceased. He has disclosed the nature of fatal blow sustained by the deceased on his face and testified to the postmortem report in his examination in para-2 thereof which also describes the nature of injury sustained by the deceased. The said injury fully D corroborates with the nature of injury, disclosed by PW- 3 to others. Thus from this evidence, it could not be dispute
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.