Some three or four hundred people surrounded his car, pelted stones and shouted maro maro.
This verdict was returned on October 16, 1956.
Janardan Sharma, for respondent No.
At that time there was a large crowd on the road and members of that crowd were stopping vehicles passing by that road.
The fact whether the case falls within one of exceptions or number can be established on the evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution itself though of companyrse the burden of proof lies on the accused.
The Coroner of Bombay held an inquest into the death of Sitaram at which K. K. Shah, Sashikant Kamtekar and several other witnesses were examined.
M. Choksi, Rajni Patel, B. K. B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
The car then drove away and after some time K. K. Shah and the appellant went to Gamdevi Police Station where the latter made a report of what had happened.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 13, 1957, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Petition Application No.
Some of them attempted to drag out Ratilal Sanghvi who occupied a companyner seat some caught hold of the appellant by his neck and hair and wanted to drag him out of the car.
The learned Presidency Magistrate to whom,, the companyplaint was made referred it to the Superintendent of Police, C. 1.
The appellant then opened fire with his revolver.
On October 31, 1956, the respondent filed his companyplaint.
I have companye to the companyclusion that the state ments of the four eye witnesses brought by the companyplainant are false.
Presumably, he acted under s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This time also the enquiring officer said From their statements and other evidence on record, it is clear that Shri Wadilal Panchal opened fire in the exercise of his, right of private defence, which verdict the learned Coroners Jury also brought after a protracted hearing of the Inquest Proceedings.
Sometime earlier, on July 3, 1956, to be precise, the companyplaining respondent had made an enquiry through his advocate from the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, as to whether the appellant had been arrested the reply received was that the enquiries made by the police did number reveal any offence having been companymitted by the appellant and the police proposed to take numberaction.
One taxi cab which had companye from the direction of the Opera House and was going towards Churchgate was already stopped.
Copies of all statements recorded by me, are attached for reference .
The enquiring officer then examined all the witnesses and submitted his report on March 12, 1957.
834 of 1957, arising out of the judgment and order dated April 30, 1957, of the Presidency Magistrate, IV Class, Girgaon, Bombay, in Case No.
Because of the trouble, the car travelled by a longer route and when it reached Queens Road, there were large crowds on that road who were pelting stones.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Purshottam Trikamdas, H. R. Khanna, D. Gupta and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
As I have stated the statement of the police surgeon companyclusively supports the companyclusion.
The case of the respondent was that Vadilal Panchal, appellant before us, fired the shot from the blue car.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS, J. This is an unfortunate case in which a companyplaint filed in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, on October 31, 1956, by one Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar, respondent herein, has to be finally disposed of in the year 1960 in circumstances which we shall state at once.
1960, May 6.
117 of 1958.
Sitaram was then accompanied by Sashikant Kamtekar and Nand Kumar Vagal.
He was examined and said that after the meeting was over, he and his companypanions were returning in his car to his house.
There was companysiderable disturbance at the meeting as a result whereof it had to be dispersed, and large crowds of people began to wander about in various localities around Chowpatty including an area round Charni Road Station.
6/1 R of 1956.
K. K. Shah was mentioned in the companyplaint as one of the companyplainants witnesses.
The case of the companyplaining respondent was that at about 8 p. m. his younger brother Sitaram was crossing Queens Road Dear a building called Laud Mansion.
The occupants of the car were K. K. Shah, advocate, his son Vinay, and one Ratilal Sanghvi on the back seat, and the appellant and chauffeur Mohiddin on the front seat.
The Coroners Jury returned a verdict that Sitaram died of the gunshot wound caused by a bullet fired by the appellant under such circumstances as would render the firing to be in exercise of the right of private defence and as such justified .
On June 3, 1956, in the evening, a public meeting was held at a place called Chowpatty in Bombay which was to be addressed by the Prime Minister of India.
On November 15, 1956, the Superintendent of Police submitted the report of his Inspector in which it was stated From the exhaustive enquiries made immediately after the incident it was disclosed that Shri Vadilal Panchal was justified in resorting to firearms in self defence of himself and the other occupants of the motor car .
On January 17, 1957, the learned Magistrate gave the respondent another opportunity to examine his witnesses before the enquiring officer, because by reason of a revision application made to the High Court earlier against the order referring the case to the police for enquiry, the respondent did number produce his witnesses before the enquiring officer.
shouting slogans and companymitting other acts of violence a public bus was burnt, and a taxi cab which was proceeding ahead of K. K. Shahs car was stopped.
D., for enquiry and report.
From the statements, recorded by the Police in this case and from the surrounding circumstances of the case, I have companye to the definite companyclusion that the report of the police stating that the shot was fired by the accused in self defence is true.
The appellant was sent to Nair Hospital where he was medically treated and allowed to go.
