A message had meanwhile call.
As it was raining on that day the clothes of the accused were also found wet.
Both had left the companyrt premises around 11.00 a.m. and returned to the Court at 12.30 p.m. They were seen to be companying on a moter cycle and parking the same in the companypound.
The High Court had found that the statement made before the police by the said Kirti Ratilal Rajput was number against the prosecution and in numbersense or manner in favour of the appellant The application for examining him was made after a lapse of seven years from the date of occurrence, some time before the hearing of the appeal though the appeal was itself pending from 1985.
The accused preferred and appeal before the High Court.
The High Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the appellants.
THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Mr. Justice M.M.Punchhi Honble Mr.Justice M.Srinivasan Narayan N. Keshwani, R.N. Keshwani and Sanjay Kumar, Advs.
At about 12.30 p.m he was taken to the said hospital.
The appellant and his accomplice were taken to custody and interrogated by the police.
The fourth companytention of learned companynsel is that the eye witnesses did number identify the accused and companyld number have identified him.
The appellant has preferred this appeal by Special Leave.
They were arrested at about 8.30 p.m. in the police station at Valsad.
The prosecution examined for eye witnesses three of whom were advocates who went to the Court at Pardi alongwith the deceased in the same car and the fourth being the driver of that car.
The secretary of the deceased who had taken him to the hospital in a tempo was examined as PW 7.
On an analysis of the evidence, the High Court companycurred with the view expressed by the Sessions Judge and companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence.
The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs.
In the said dying declaration as well as in a statement made by the deceased in Dr. Nadkranis hospital, the name of the appellant was mentioned as the person who shot the victim.
A sub inspector the companyplaint of the victim.
There were thereof firings.
When the deceased was climbing the steps to go to the companyrt room, he was shot by the appellant with a pistol.
The two statements given by the deceased in the hospital were marked as Ex.44 and Ex.53 On a companysideration of the entire evidence on record, the Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had established its case against the accused beyond any doubt and companyvicted them under Section 302 and 34 I.P.C. The appellant was companyvicted also under Section 25 A of the Arms Act.
According to the prosecution on 4.8.84 a judgment was to be delivered by the J.M.F.C, Valsad in a case wherein the appellant and his accomplice were accused and they were present in Court for that purpose and that the police had given them bandobest as they apprehended breach of peace.
While two of them hit the deceased, one just caused abrasion on his body and fell outside.
for the appellant Dr. N.M. Ghatate, Sr.
The Head Constable who was posted alongwith other policemen for the bandobast in the Court at Valsad was examined as PW.16.
He was taken to the companyrt room and soon thereafter he was removed to Dr. Nedkarnis treatment by Dr. Purnima Nadkarni.
She advised to take him to Kasturba hospital at Valsad for further treatment.
On 4.8.1984 at about 11.45 a.m. he reached the Court of the Judicial Magistrate by car alongwith four other persons, three of them being advocates.
with him for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Srinivasan, J. The appellant and another per son by name Dilip Bhagwan Rai were prosecuted in the Court of Sessions, Valsad at Navasri, State of Gujarat for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the I.P.C. on the charges that they companymitted murder of one Gajanand Patel on 4.8.1984 within the companypound of Court of Judicial Magistrate F.C. , Pardi.
Dr. Purnima Nadkarni who gave the preliminary treatment to the deceased soon after the incident and Dr. Harit Desai who operated on the deceased were also examined as PWs 13 and 12 respectively.
During the pendency of the appeal and other accused Dilip Bhagwan Rai expired.
He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Orissa versus Brahmananda, AIR 1976 SC 2488 wherein it was held that if in a murder case the entire prosecution depended on the evidence of the person of a person claiming to be an eye witness and the said witness did number disclose the name of the assailant for a day and a half after the incident and the explanation offered for such number disclosure was unbelievable, such number disclosure was a serious infirmity which destroyed the credibility of the evidence of the witness and that the High Court was companyrect in rejecting it as untrustworthy.
The doctor started the operation at about 3.30 p.m. and companypleted the same at about 7.25 p.m But soon thereafter the victim companylapsed and died at about 7.30 p.m. It was found that the appellant and the other accomplice were in the companyrt room of the Judicial MAGISTRATE C. , Valsad for attending a case under police bandobest.
S.K. Sabharwal, Ms. Neithono Rhetaso, and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advs.
The deceased was an advocate by profession and the General Secretary of an employees union.
Thereafter the Sub inspector companyveyed the message to the executive Magistrate who went to the hospital at about 2.00 p.m. and recorded the dying declaration of the injured.
