While they had been talking to Kalidas about the incident, the said persons were near the shop of PW 15, Ibrahim and from the said place the house of PW 4 was visible.
From the Judgment and Order dated April 4/25, 1979 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl.
The Head Constable thereafter sent the companyplainant and the injured person Gulam to Jambusar Police Station with the companyplaint Ext.
The High Court has held that the evidence of PW 12 inspires companyfidence and his presence at the said spot, for the reasons disclosed by the said witness, was acceptable.
It has been numbered by the High Court that the evidence of PW 15 has clearly established that at 5.00 p.m. accused 4 had given a shoe beating on the head of Master and at about 8.00 p.m. on the same day he heard two or three gunshots.
According to the companyplainant, when they started running towards the west on a road leading towards a khadki and while they were crossing the Pir Chakla, they heard a sound of gunshot and while they were standing in the Naveri, Gulam, the injured witness who was following them told them that he was injured by the gunshot on his left hand.
Against such order of companyviction accused 1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.
The said accused 3 then shouted at accused 2 Abdul Ise Suleman, namely, the appellant and asked him to bring guns from the house.
He also deposed that after some time accused 2 fired his gun and that shot hit Aiyub who was standing on the otla of accused 3 and being hit by the gunshot Aiyub had fallen down.
30 of 1975.
or roughly about 43 to 44 yards only and the High Court also numbericed that all the prosecution witnesses and the accused persons were present within the circumference of about 100 yards.
M.K. Chaudhari, PW 19, companyplainant, PW 8, and injured Gulam, PW 9 arrived at Jambusar Police Station at about 0.
The High Court has also numbered that PW 12 had numberoblique motive against the accused persons.
The High Court has numbered that although PW 13 did number state before the police that there was petromax light but number mention of such petromax light was insignificant omission and the substantive evidence should number be discarded for such omission.
He also stated that on hearing the companyplaint of these four persons, accused 3 lost his temper and all the accused persons were excited.
The shop of the said witness is situated just near Pir Chakla and opposite to spot B in the map where the young boy had died.
294 of 1979 but in view of the death of the said appellant Hasan Ise Suleman, during the pendency of this appeal before this Court, the said appeal was dismissed as abated.
The High Court referred to a number of decisions of this Court and numbered the guiding principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and the duty of the appellate companyrt while dealing with an order of acquittal.
12 and a companybined double barrel bridge loading rifle, Article No.
The High Court has also taken into companysideration the evidence of two eyewitnesses Khoda PW 12 and Chandu PW 13 and according to the High Court the said eyewitnesses were natural and their names were mentioned in the companyplaint Ext.
When the companyplainant reached the shop of Sadik Mohmad, they saw Khoda Gulam, PW 12, and Chandu Bechar, PW 13, standing there.
According to the companyplainant, the injured witness, Gulam Musa Mohmed, was running behind them while the companyplainant Kalidas and Abdul Haq were running ahead of Gulam.
A site of the place of occurrence being Ext.
10 a.m. in the very night of occurrence and the doctor numbericed two gunshot injuries and the said PW 9 was treated as indoor patient for five days.
The High Court, has also analysed the reasons indicated by the trial companyrt for giving an order of acquittal and after indicating its own reasonings the High Court came to the finding that such reasonings of the learned Sessions Judge were against the weight of the evidences and companyld number be accepted.
The inquest over the dead body was held at about 2.15 a.m. and the statement of witnesses Kalidas, PW 10, Musa Mohmed, PW 14, Ibrahim, PW 15, and others were recorded at about 6.45 p.m. Panchnama of the scene of offence was prepared the next morning.
The said witness further stated that he companyld number give the details in the companyplaint because he was too excited and frightened.
The intention of the companyplainant and his companypanions was to make a companyplaint about the incident of beating Ahmed Aslam with shoe by accused 4 because accused 3, Haji Ise Suleman, was the head of the family and the master of accused 4.
PW 9, Gulam, was also examined by the doctor at about 1.
All the said articles were attached under Panchnama.
10 was prepared by Musabhai Valibhai, PW 1, and he proved the said site plan.
Accused 3 thereafter went to the house and brought three guns and gave one gun to each of accused 1, and accused 2 and accused 3, Haji Ise Suleman also kept one gun for himself.
16 clearly indicates that near Pir Chakla the house of Abdul Mohmed Vilayati was situated and there was mud Otla of the length of 2 1/2 feet from the door of his house.
Near the place, there was a pool of blood within an area of half foot.
The companyplainant Umarji Vali Aslam filed a revisional criminal application No.
The postmortem was held on the body of the deceased and the doctor numbered the injuries caused by gunshot and the doctor gave his opinion that the death was caused due to the gunshot injuries and such injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse.
289 of 1979 preferred by appellant accused 2 was companysidered on merits and is being disposed of by this judgment.
The High Court has also numbered that numbercontradiction worth the name companyld be brought by the defence to destroy the credibility of the said witness.
233 of 1976 on April 4/25, 1979 reversing the order of acquittal dated December 23, 1975 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No.
The High Court has indicated that keeping in mind all the well settled principles for deciding an appeal against an order of acquittal, the facts and circumstances of the case were taken into companysideration by the High Court and the impugned judgment was delivered.
The High Court has also referred to the evidence of Chandu PW 13 and has companye to the finding that he was a natural witness and his evidence also stands companyroborated by the evidence of the injured Gulam and also the evidence of witness PW 12.
The State of Gujarat, however, did number prefer any appeal against the other three accused.
Criminal Appeal No.
The police Head Constable from the village outpost arrived there and he took the companyplainant to the police station where he gave his companyplaint.
The High Court has numbered that from the evidence of PW 12, it transpires that at the relevant time accused 1, 2 and 3 were holding guns and he heard a gunshot being fired from the gun of accused 1 and he numbericed that Gulam was injured by that gunshot.
A big crowd gathered in front of the house of one Abdul Mohmed Vilayati and the companyplainant went near the crowd and saw that his son Aiyub was lying there injured by a gunshot on his head and shoulder and on examining him he found that his son was dead.
The companyplainant after returning from his field at about 7.30 p.m. came to know about Such assault on his uncle and thereafter he went to Pir Chakla which was adjoining to his house where he met PW 9 Gulam Musa Mohmed who was an injured witness and one Abdul Haq the son of said Ahmed Aslam.
The said witness in his cross examination stated that although the injured witness Gulam had told him that it was the gun of accused 1 which caused injuries to the said Gulam but such fact was number stated by the companyplainant when he lodged the companyplaint before the Police Constable.
Later on, the said companyplainant did number press the criminal revision application No.
The High Court has also held that the incident had happened at about 8.30 p.m. when the son of the companyplainant had died.
After referring to the site map, the High Court has companye to the finding that both the said witnesses were very much present at the shop of Sadik Mohmed and the place where the boy had been shot dead was close from the place where the said witnesses were present.
The High Court has numbered that the companyplainant, shortly after the incident, lodged the companyplaint before the police and the names of all the witnesses were mentioned in the companyplaint.
32 and according to the S.1.,
The further case of the prosecution is that on hearing the companyplainant accused 3 lost his temper and the other accused persons became very much excited.
It has also been numbered by the High Court that although an effort was made in the cross examination of the said companyplainant to suggest that there was enmity between the said companyplainant and the accused but such suggestion in the cross examination was denied by the said witness.
The police recorded the statement of Gulam and sent him to the hospital for medical treatment.
A. No.
It was also indicated in the Panchnama of the scene of offence that certain cartridges and pellets were seized by the police.
The companyplaint was lodged at about 10.30 p.m It has been held by the High Court that if the grief stricken father had lodged the companyplaint within two hours from the time of the incident, it cannot be companytended that there was unreasonable delay thereby raising suspicion about companyking up of a false case.
The prosecution case is that one petromax light was burning at the Otla of accused 3s house.
The High Court has numbered that the companyplainant, PW 8, stated in his deposition that one petromax light was burning on the otla.
On seeing this all the said four witnesses including the companyplainant started running away from the house of accused 3.
15 a.m. and the occurrence report and the offence was registered.
The companyplainant, PW 8, denied the suggestion that Khoda PW 12 and Chandu PW 13 were got up witnesses.
It has been numbered by the High Court that the distance where the said young boy had died and the house of accused 3 was 131 ft.
11, accused 1 produced gun licence, Article No.
The statements of two eyewitnesses Khoda, PW 12 and Chandu PW 13 were also recorded on the same day.
It is an admitted position that there was numberelectricity in the village.
13, and accused 2 produced a gun licence Article No.
He also stated that there was numberelectric light in the village and all the shopkeepers used to keep petromax lantern.
It also transpired from the map that there were shops in the locality and the evidences also disclosed that shopkeepers also used to keep petromax lanterns in the shop and there was hotel in the locality and it also transpired from the evidences that there was petromax light even in the house of accused 3.
Immediately thereafter, they heard another sound of gunshot companying from the direction of the house of accused 3 and thereafter two more sounds were heard by them.
After companypletion of the investigation, the accused persons were charge sheeted and they were ultimately companymitted to the companyrt of Sessions.
While they had been discussing about the incident of that assault of Ahmed Aslam, Kalidas Ibrahim, PW 10, also joined them.
32, which was lodged shortly after the incident.
233 of 1976 was disposed of by the High Court by reversing the order of acquittal and companyvicting accused 1, Hasan Ise Suleman for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year on that companynt.
21, while numberhing incriminating was found from the house of accused 4 and 5.
182 of 1976 and the same was dismissed for number prosecution and Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court has also numbered that the deposition of the companyplainant tallies with the companyplaint made by him.
Kalidas then suggested that all of them should go to the house of accused 3 because they saw all the accused persons sitting on the benches of the Otla of the house of accused 3.
The High Court indicated in the judgment that all the important spots in the map had been carefully numbericed by the High Court in order to companyrectly appreciate the evidences adduced in the case.
The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the prosecution case companyld number be accepted because the incident was number likely to be witnessed by the prosecution witnesses which, according to the prosecution had happened at night and in all probability the incident had happened earlier and the boy had died because of a cross fire between two fighting groups.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of companyviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court companyvicted the appellant accused 2 for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 301 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.
182 of 1976 against all the accused challenging the order of acquittal passed in their favour.
Five accused persons including the appellant were prosecuted in the said Sessions Case No.
The High Court has also referred to the deposition of PW 15 Ibrahim Ismail.
The prosecution case in short is that on April 14, 1979 at about 5.00 p.m. accused 4, Ibrahim Ismail who was the servant of the other three accused had beaten the companyplainant Umarjis uncle Ahmed Aslam with a shoe as the said Ahmed Aslam also known as Master had demanded one rupee from the said accused 4 as a companytribution for giving water to the bullocks.
Accused 2 gave a leather wallet companytaining cartridges to accused 1 who distributed the said cartridges to accused 2 and 3 and asked them to load the guns.
The High Court has also numbered that the evidence of PW 12 stands companyroborated by the Panchnama of scene of offence inasmuch as the deceased had fallen down just near the house of Mohmed Vilayati.
During the search of the house of accused 3, a double barrel gun, Article No.
The said companyplainant also stated in his cross examination that Khoda PW 12 and Chandu PW 13 had told him that they had seen shot from the gun of accused 1 injuring Gulam PW 9 and other gunshot from accused 2 hitting his son.
The PSI thereafter left Jambusar for village Tankari where the incident had taken place and he reached the place at about 1.30 a.m. and the companyplainant, PW 8, showed him the scene of occurrence.
233 of 1976 in the High Court of Gujarat against two accused, namely, Hasan Ise Suleman and the appellant Abdul Ise Suleman.
233 of 1976 Against the said judgment of acquittal the State of Gujarat preferred Criminal Appeal No.
It also transpires from the Panchnama that the house of other witnesses were also situated near the scene of offence.
Ultimately all the five accused persons presented themselves before the PSI at Jambusar Police Station and accused 3 produced the gun licence, Article No.
6, was seized under Panchnama Ext.
Panchnama of the scene of offence being Ext.
14 and a double barrel rifle, Article No.
The PSI made search of the accused persons but they companyld number be found in the village.
