In this appeal Shri R.K. Garg.
The High Court went into the matter in great detail and after companysidering elaborately the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge, it came to the companyclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence of murder.
By that time the injured person had been taken to the hospital.
The learned Sessions Judge discarded the evidence of the other eye witnesses on the ground that they spoke to the presence of Yusufbhai and did number speak to the presence of Dagadu and Kamarsingh.
The injured pointed towards the main gate indicating that the assailant had run that way.
Dagdu and Kamarsingh went to the Police Station to inform the Sub Inspector about the stabbing.
On appeal by the State of Gujarat the order of acquittal was set aside by the High Court and he was companyvicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
The injured person said I am stabbed by one person on my chest on the platform and he has run away.
He also relied on the circumstance that the driver of the carriage also stated that the deceased did number mention the name of the assailant.
He has filed this appeal.
Accordingly the accused was companyvicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
The occurrence was also witnessed by P.Ws.
The failure of Dagadu to mention the presence of Yusufbhai and the statement of Dagadu that he saw a man running towards the main gate with his hands on the chest disproved, according to the learned Sessions Judge, the presence of Yusufbhai as well as his story that immediately on being stabbed the deceased sat down and Yusufbhai made him get up and took him towards the main gate.
who went away uttering a threat at the deceased.
The learned Sessions Judge also relied on the circumstance that according to Dagadu the deceased did number mention the name of the assailant but merely said that one person had stabbed him.
Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that two views were possible on the evidence in the case and the learned Sessions Judge had taken one view which companyld number be described as unreasonable, and it was, therefore, number permissible for the High Court to interfere with the order of acquittal.
At the hospital, in the meanwhile, P.W. 2, the Medical Officer examined the injured and sent an intimation to the Police Station.
Shri Garg relied primarily on the entry, made in the Station diary, of the information furnished by Dagadu and argued that the name of the assailant was number known initially and that the accused was implicated later.
The plea of the accused was one of denial.
The learned Sessions Judge thought that if Yusufbhai was present at the time of the occurrence and had taken the deceased towards the main gate, he would have certainly met Dagadu and Kamarsingh when they came near the deceased on hearing his cries save me, save me.
He also argued that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge were number met by the High Court.
An entry was made in the station diary mentioning the information given by Dagadu.
4, 5 and 6 among others, P.W. 15, Dagadu, a companystable attached to the Railway Police Station happened to be companying along the platform along with another Constable Kamarsingh when they saw a man companying with his hands on his chest, crying save me, save me.
On the day of occurrence, at about 8 A.M. the deceased had gone to Viramgam Railway Station to catch a train to go to Ahmedabad, as was his habit every day.
The deceased Amminuddin Miyasaheb intervened and this angered the accused.
3, 4, 5 and 6 and the dying declaration recorded by the Sub Inspector at the Hospital.
So he returned.
Having put his bag in the companypartment, he was standing on the platform when the accused attacked him with a knife.
The case against the accused was as follows There was a trivial quarrel between the accused and Hajishah, P.W. 8 over a soap box near the Koteswar tube well, where both of them had gone for a bath.
The deceased sat down clutching his chest with both hands and crying save me, save me, P.W. 3, Yusufbhai who had gone to the Railway Station to see his sister in law off, witnessed the occurrence, went near the deceased, made him get up, took him up to the gate, put him in a carriage and went with him to the hospital.
The Sub Inspector of Police proceeded forthwith to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the injured person in the presence of the Medical Officer.
5 dated 15 9 69 from the Station Diary of Viramgam Railway Police Station 8.20 hrs.
The dying declaration was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the friends and relatives of the deceased were admittedly with the deceased just before he made the dying declaration and there was therefore, an opportunity for the deceased to be tutored to implicate the accused.
On appeal by the State of Gujarat, the High Court held that there was numberacceptable reason for the rejection of the evidence of the eye witnesses or the dying declaration.
The blow was delivered on the left side of the chest.
Within half an hour after the statement was recorded the injured expired at 9.15 a.m. As already numbericed the stabbing took place at about 8 a.m. After companypleting the investigation the Police filed a chargesheet against the accused for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, In support of its case the prosecution relied upon the direct evidence of P.Ws.
The learned Sessions Judge rejected the evidence of the eye witnesses primarily on the ground that they did number refer to the presence of Dagadu and Dagadu did number mention that any other persons were present near the deceased, when he heard him crying save me, save me.
Dagadu ran towards the main gate in order to apprehend the assailant but he was unable to find him.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. Habib Usman, sole appellant, was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural of an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.
