Dr H.N. Joshi, PW 12 performed an autopsy over the dead body of Sohanlal on the day of occurrence itself between 5.30 to 7.00 p.m. and as per his report he found one oblique stab wound cavity deep on left lateral side of vertebral companyumn between 8th and 9th, intercostal space left side.
The Chemical Examiner found blood on the earth lifted from the place of occurrence and wall scrapings as well as on the two knives seized from the appellants and also on the golden dial wrist watch.
One of them caught hold of Punaram while the other caught hold of Sohanlal.
On the disclosure statement, said to have been made by the appellant Mangal Dhulji, a bloodstained knife article H was also seized at his instance.
The cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage and injury to vital organ like lung.
They enquired from a person the location of Ghayal Lodge.
The companyplainant accompanied by the two deceased persons came to Porbandar from Junagarh on 1 1 8 1977 at about 1 1.00 a.m. and met O.P. Makkar, PW 8 an officer of Saurashtra Chemicals in his office.
It is said that a sum of Rs 25,000 was deposited by the deceased persons through a bank draft with Saurashtra Chemicals but numberfinal deal was struck in their favour till 1 1 8 1977.
He further deposed that the person who came to phone and made two phone calls belonged to Junagarh.
The accused appellant 2 Mangal was examined by him at 2.35 p.m. and found an incised wound over the right palm lateral aspect.
The injury was ante mortem in nature and the cause of death was on account of hemorrhage due to profuse bleeding.
About three four days prior to the occurrence the two deceased persons again approached Ranchhodbhai in his shop at Junagarh and told him that they had finalised the work of lime dust with Saurashtra Syndicate.
Ranchhodbhai, PW 1 deposed that about three months prior to the occurrence both the deceased Punaram and Sohanlal had approached him saying that they wanted to take the companytract of lime dust of Saurashtra Syndicate, Porbandar.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge on scrutiny of the evidence of the sole eyewitness Ranchhodbhai, PW 1 disbelieved his testimony on account of various infirmities pointed out by him in his judgment and, therefore, recorded the order of acquittal of both the appellants.
Both the appellants denied the disclosure statement and the seizure of knives at their instance.
The clothes of the appellant, Mangal Dhulji companylectively marked F and his wrist watch marked G were also seized.
At the relevant time he was a Government Contractor and the deceased Punaram was also working as a companytractor who belonged to Rajasthan but was living at Malia for the last 10 to 15 years and was known to Ranchhodbhai since a number of years and he had also worked with tile deceased Punaram in the years 1973 74.
deceased Punaram, therefore, went to Dhari for companylecting the dues of his bill and Sohanlal stayed at Junagarh for a day and then went to his place Malia.
The Serologist found human blood on the wall scrapings, earth, wrist watch and knives and also on some of the clothes of the appellants.
Appellant 2, Mangal Dhulji also admitted to have been examined by the Medical Officer in the hospital same day at 2.35 p.m. in respect of an injury which according to him was sustained by him on account of his scuffle with appellant 1.
All these articles were sent to the Chemical Examiner, Ahmedabad.
622 of Gujarat Cycle Stores near Liberty Talkies that two persons were lying in a pool of blood and were unconscious.
Ranchhodbhai goes on to state that at the factory gate they hired a rickshaw for taking them up to Sudama chowk.
A criticism was advanced that Constable Prabhashankar, PW 19 who was on duty in Porbandar City Police Station did number depose that any such telephonic message was companyveyed to the police station and the station diary of Porbandar dated 11 8 1977 Ext.
It is said that the companytract in which the deceased were interested was given to Mukesh Co. and one Ram Gopal had an interest in the same and since the appellants were number only related to Ram Gopal, but they were themselves partners in Mukesh Co., and, therefore, they were number happy with the deceased who were trying to obtain the said companytract.
This injury was ante mortem in nature and in the opinion of the doctor it was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death and the same companyld have been caused by a weapon like knife.
He deposedthat on the day of occurrence at about 1.30 or 2.00 p.m. when he was present in his shop, one person came and said he wanted to phone.
Dr Avasia, PW 1 1, at the relevant time was Medical Officer in Bhavsinhji Hospital at Porbandar who companyducted an autopsy over the dead bodv of Punaram on 11 8 1977.
408 or 622 is number so much material as the message itself and in view of the evidence of Jayantilal Pandey, PW 6 and Head Constable Moolchand, PW 18 It can hardly be said that numbertelephonic message was companyveyed by Ranchhodbhal, PW 1.
Dr Nathani stated that the accused 2 Mangal was admitted as an indoor patient and he was discharged oil 12 8 1977 at 1.00 p.m. This shows that appellant Mangal was in the hospital right from 2.35 p.m. till 1.00 p.m. on 12 8 1977.
While so proceeding towards Ghayal Lodge they passed from the Liberty Talkies Road to a narrow lane and from there to a broader lane at the end of which there was a road.
Ranchhodbhai identified the appellants in the companyrtroom to be those two persons who arrived on the scooter with open knives as according to him he had seen these two appellants again in the government hospital also soon after the occurrence between 3.30 to 4.00 p.m. Ranchhodbhai, PW 1 further deposed that after the appellants caught hold of the deceased Punaram and Sohanlal with open knives, the appellants questioned them as to why they were obstructing in their companytract with Saurashtra Chemicals.
The deceased Sohanlal was known to this witness Ranchhodbhai since about three months prior to the occurrence.
The injury was ante mortem in nature.
After the report of Ranchhodbhai was recorded and sent to the police station for registration, the same Police Officer also recorded the FIR alleged to have been given by the appellant 2, Mangal Dhulji which was also registered at the police station at about 4.00 p.m. After the preparation of the inquest reports of the two dead bodies, post mortem was companyducted.
He saw Punaram lying unconscious in a lane companynecting the Liberty Talkies Road.
Dr Nathani, PW 10 examined appellant 1 Kishor also on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. who had one incised muscle deep wound on the rest of left thumb.
He found blood in the narrow lane but Punaram and Sohanlal were number there.
At the trial the two appellants adjured their guilt and pleaded false implication.
The appellants denied that they were partners in Mukesh Co. or that the two deceased persons were negotiating for the said companytract.
Now we shall advert to the material evidence on record.
The companyplainant Ranchhodbhai Bhagwanbhai, PW 1 at the relevant time, was a Government Contractor and the two deceased persons, namely Punaram and Sohanlal who were known to him were also engaged in the companytract business.
A site Plan Ext.
32 was also prepared by the Maintenance Surveyor 1.M. Joshi, PW 3 in which the lane where the incident is said to have occurred and the two places where the dead bodies of Sohanlal and Punaram were found lying are shown as well as the places where blood was found.
The Medical Officer who attended the two declared them dead.
It is alleged that both the appellants got down from the scooter with open knives in their hands and rushed towards Punaram and Sohanlal.
There is yet another ground which made the learned Sessions Judge to disbelieve the testimony of Ranchhodbhai and it is this that he did number find in the evidence of the Head Constable Moolchand Hiranand, PW 18 who was on duty in the police station at the relevant time, that he received any telephonic message from Ranchhodbhai about the incident and there was numberentry to this effect in the police station diary to support the version of Ranchhodbhai that be had phoned to the police station and fire brigade.
It is said that in the meanwhile the Police Inspector, Dwivedi, PW 20 also arrived in the hospital where the companyplainant Ranchhodbhai PW 1 gave first information report at 3.30 p.m. marked A which was registered in the Police Station at about 3.45 p.m. It is also the prosecution case that the two appellants also reached the police station in injured companydition and they were also taken in the same hospital by a companystable in a van at or about the time when the report of the companyplainant Ranchhodbhai was being recorded in the hospital.
On these findings the learned trial Judge took the view that Ranchhodbhai, PW 1 cannot be accepted as an eyewitness and, as such, numberconviction can be founded on his evidence and, therefore, recorded the order of acquittal of the appellants from the offences they were charged with.
Ranchhodbhai and the two deceased persons left Saurashtra Chemicals at about 12.30 in the numbern and saw a motor car parked outside the factory gate belonging to the then companytractor of Saurashtra Chemicals.
Placing companyplete reliance on the evidence of Ranchhodbhai, PW 1, and other material on record, the High Court reversed the acquittal and companyvicted both the appellants under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to undergo life imprisonment against which this appeal has been directed.
Thereafter he saw a crowd of some persons at the nearby tea shop.
The dead body was received by the doctor at 4.45 p.m. with a police yadi.
The deceased Punaram and Sohanlal offered to withdraw from the companytract if the appellants were interested in the same.
The companyplainant, Ranchhodbhai, again returned to the lane where the incident had occurred.
The dead body of Sohanlal was also received in the same hospital at 5.25 p.m. by Dr Joshi, PW 12 who performed an autopsy at 5.30 p.m. and companypleted the same at 7.00 p.m. As per postmortem report and statement of Dr Joshi there was one stab wound 2 x 1/2 cavity deep on the left lateral side of vertebral companyumn between 8th and 9th intercostal space and had cut the pleura of the left lung which had companylapsed.
They also denied the alleged entries in the police station diary regarding their appearance in the police station or that they were taken from the police station to tile hospital by the Constable Prabhashanker Tulsi, PW 19.
They also denied having met the deceased persons on the day of occurrence in the lane where the incident is said to have occurred.
It is said that a car belonging to the old companytractor whose companytract work with Saurashtra Chemicals was going on, was parked outside the gate of the companypany, but there was numberone in the car.
Ranchhodbhai deposed that he accompanied them in the ambulance to the hospital where they were examined and declared dead by the doctor.
The injury was fresh and bleeding caused by a sharp cutting instrument like a knife.
The injury was antemortem in nature and sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
The deceased Punaram and Sohanlal were interested in securing the companytract from Saurashtra Chemicals for removal of dust Grit and in that companynection they had approached the companyplainant Ranchhodbhai to ascertain whether he too was interested in the same.
He rushed to a nearby tea shop and made a telephonic call for ambulance and also informed the police station of the incident.
Not only this but police also arrived in the hospital as in the meantime a message from the hospital was also sent to the police station about the two injured persons.
The bloodstained clothes companylectively marked 1 of the appellant Kishor and his bloodstained watch marked J were also seized.
Thereafter he proceeded further and found that Sohanlal was lying dead on the Liberty Talkies Road.
It is true that the witness Jayantilal did number know as to what was the name of the person who made the phone calls but in the companytext of what has been discussed above that person companyld be numberother than Ranchhodbhai PW 1, himself.
As against this the High Court took a companytrary view by reversing all the aforesaid findings and companyclusions recorded by the trial companyrt and took a definite view that the evidence of Ranchhodbhai, PW 1 is fully companysistent, free from all infirmities and embellishment and treating him as a truthful witness placed him in the category of wholly reliable witness and, therefore, reversed the order of acquittal and recorded the finding of guilt against the appellants.
The medical evidence discussed above established beyond doubt that the two victims had died a homicidal death on the date of occurrence itself.
According to the companyplainant when they came out of the broader lane, the two appellants came on a scooter from opposite direction which they stopped and parked near them.
32, blood has been shown to be present at the entrance of the lane as well as near Kalyan Press at Liberty Talkies Road as well as near garage belonging to Govind Meehami PW 2 .
He numbericed that though there were bloodstains in the lane but Punaram and Sohanlal were number there and, therefore, he proceeded ahead and found Punaram lying unconscious at the companyner of the bylane.
In the site plan Ext.
When this dialogue was going on between the deceased and the appellants he got frightened and, therefore, ran away to some distance and stood at the companyner of the lane watching them from there.
Ranchhodbhai, PW 1, the solitary witness of the incident is resident of Porbandar.
From Sudama Chowk they proceeded on foot to Ghayal Lodge through Liberty Talkies Road for taking their lunch there.
This finding of the learned trial Judge, like all other findings is also based on wholly wrong approach to the case and total misappreciation of the evidence on record which would be demonstrated by us in the para hereinafter.
The injury in the opinion of the doctor was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause the death of the victim.
However, the High Court on reappraisal and close scrutiny of the evidence of the said eyewitness recorded the companyclusion that testimony of the above named sole eyewitness does number suffer from any infirmities as pointed out by the trial companyrt and took the view that slight variations in his statement, on immaterial aspects do number make his testimony incredible.
Dr H.V. Avasia, PW 1 1 performed an autopsy over the dead body of Punaram on the day of occurrence itself between 5.00 to 6.00 p.m. who as per his postmortem report found an incised wound on the left supraclavicular region one inch above from the mid of left clavicle on the apex of the left lung transverse in position.
One of the appellants held Punaram and another held Sohanlal and asked them as to why they were companying in their way.
Soon after he heard that the appellants started the scooter and went away.
Both the deceased asked him to accompany them and see by himself.
It is said that though the deceased were prepared to withdraw themselves from the said deal yet one of the appellants gave one knife blow to Punaram and another appellant gave one knife blow to Sohanlal.
During the companyrse of investigation wall scrapings and bloodstained earth from the lane as well as from the Liberty Talkies Road was lifted.
The appellant 1 also denied the seizure of scooter from him as well as the seizure of mat and right side grip which are said to be stained with blood.
Both the appellants took the plea that they had a quarrel inter se in which they had sustained the injuries.
He allowed him to telephone and that person made two phones, one to the police station and the other to the fire brigade saying that two persons were injured with knife and, therefore, send ambulance immediately.
64 only shows a telephone message having been companyveyed at 2.10 p.m. by Gopalbhai Ranchhodbhai from telephone No.
After about an hour the ambulance arrived and Sohanlal and Punaram both were removed to the hospital.
He went to the narrow lane and from there reached the Liberty Talkies Road.
According to the companyplainant the ambulance arrived after about an hour and injured Sohanlal and Punaram were taken to hospital by the companyplainant.
49 for a sum of Rs 25,000 for payment to the Saurashtra Chemicals.
The companyplainant, Ranchhodbhai, looking to the incident of assault by knife, became nervous and ran away from there and came to a nearby lane.
The postmortem companymenced at 5.00 p.m. and companypleted at 6.00 p.m. and as per postmortem report and the evidence of Dr Avasia, PW 1 1, there was an incised wound on the left supraclavicular region which had also cut the left lung.
Though appellant 1, Kishor admitted to have gone to the hospital at 4.00 p.m. but he stated that he was discharged same day after dressing.
After the appellants went away he came back to the place wherefrom he had seen the occurrence.
He also went there and found that Sohanlal was lying dead on the Liberty Talkies Road.
Learned companynsel for parties were heard quite at length.
Then the man who had caught Punaram gave a knife blow to him and the other man who had caught Sohanlal gave a knife blow to him also while the two victims were shouting as to why they are being assaulted, Ranchhodbhal further deposed that he then came on the main road and at that time he heard that the accused appellants started the scooter and then saw the assailants going away on the scooter.
The prosecution had examined one Jayantilal, PW 6 who had a tea shop onthe Liberty Talkies Road and has a telephone bearing No.
He then rushed to a nearby tea shop wherefrom he phoned for the ambulance and also informed the police about the occurrence.
Ranchhodbhai then went along with them to Porbandar and came back but without obtaining the companytract.
Pleura of left lung was cut and left lung had companylapsed.
The companyplainant being frightened with the attitude of the appellants with open knives, he stood at a distance at the companyner of the broader lane watching them with fear and anxiety.
He guided them to the road leading to the said lodge.
This evidence was sought to be capitalised by the learned companynsel for the appellants by companytending that Ranchhodbhai did number phone at all either to the police station or for the ambulance as he himself does number make any mention for having phoned from phone No.
He was bleeding from his shoulder.
The companyplainant Ranchhodbhai along with the two deceased Punaram and Sohanlal left Saurashtra Chemicals at about 12.30 p.m. and proceeded on a rickshaw to Sudama Chowk and from there they proceeded on foot towards Ghayal Lodge to take meals there.
Ranchhodbhai, PW 1 further deposed that on 1 1 8 1977, the day of occurrence, he along with the deceased Punaram and Sohanlal left Junagarh for Porbandar by bus at 6.00 a.m. and met Shri Makkar, PW 8 who was a Civil Engineer in Saurashtra Chemicals and discussed with him the terms of companytract but the companytract companyld number be finalised.
A day before the occurrence deceased Punaram again approached Ranchhodbhai and told him that he had taken out a Demand Draft Ext.
The question for our companysideration is whether the High Court on reappraisal of the testimony of the sole eyewitness and other material on record has acted within the companystraints and the principles laid down by this Court with regard to the reassessment of the evidence and was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal.
All the three persons passed through a narrow lane, arrived at a big road and at that point, as stated by Ranchhodbhai, PW 1, two persons arrived on a scooter and rushed towards them with open knives.
There they discussed with him the terms and companyditions but the companytract was still number finalised.
On a disclosure statement said to have been made by the appellant Kishor a knife article K was also seized at his instance.
The scooter on which the appellants are said to have arrived at the place of occurrence was also seized from appellant 1, Kishor.
