There was numberdispute that death of deceased was due to piercing of bullets from a fireman.
THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present Honbel Mr. Justice M. K. Mukherjee Honble Mr. Justice K. T. Thomas Yashank Adhyaru, Manoj Wad, Advs.
The evidence in this case, in the light of the admissions made by the appellant, has narrowed down to the following points Appellant had fired his rifle and the deceased who was on his duty, sustained the bullet injuries and died.
PW 3 Jayantrajsinh a companyleague of both deceased and appellant narrated the incident which ensued exchange of words between appellant and deceased.
P 15 report he snatched it from the deceased and prevailed upon him to desist from forwarding it to the superiors, but later when he heard that the appellant was fuming with acerbity towards the deceased he returned Ext.
I then reported the incident to the persons who were in the office.
for Ms. J. S. Wad, Adv.
Post mortem examination of the dead body revealed, inter alia, one fire arm wound on the back of the right shoulder with blackening of the skin and its exit wound was on the left axilla with a big hollow cavity through which lung tissues protruded another entry wound on the right scapula, its exit wound on the 5th vertebra with tearing of skin and muscle over an area of 3 x 3, another entry wound below the left gluteal fold with balckening of the skin and its exit would was on the upper gluteal fold.
On the evening of 2.7.1983 had numbered the appellant walking near the tower of the Dam.
The witness also said that when he knew about Ext.
The victim of the gun shot was Ukadbhai Radvabhai.
I heard the sound of something falling down.
The victim died on the spot.
Ms. H. Wahi and Ms. Neithono Rhetso, Advs.
Appellant was allotted to the same platoon and was placed below the deceased.
Prosecution case is that appellant was of a truculent temperament and as he did number lightly take the diatribe hurled against him by the deceased he was groping for a suitable opportunity to retaliate.
for the appellant.
However, a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat, while re appraising the whole evidence on an appeal filed by the State, felt numberspeck of doubt that it was a companyd blooded murder perpetrated by the appellant.
Some Skirmishes developed and deceased had taken the appellant to task on the ground of dereliction in the discharge of the work allotted to him.
for the Respondent.
Appellant thus became entitled to file his appeal, as of right, under Section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970.
Appellant was charged and tried for murder, but the trial judge entertained doubt about his companyplicity and acquitted him.
P 15 to him.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered THOMAS, J. One armed companystable of Special Reserved Police SRP shot at his immediate superior Head Constable while the latter was perambulating around Khampla Dam site in Gujarat State during dusk hours of a cloudy day in July 1983.
Head Constable of S. R. P. who was posted along with other police personnel at Khampla Dam site which was then in danger on account of heavy rainfall.
He aimed his rifle at the deceased and pumped four bullets into his vital parts which caused his end in a trice.
One most important circumstance is, Ext.
P 15 report was companylected by the police from the bag of the deceased after his death.
