Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad heard two criminal appeals arising from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No.77 of 1991 dated 29.04.2003. The appellants-accused were convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment, and also under Section 120B read with Section 34 IPC and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The first appeal, Criminal Appeal No.649 of 2003, was filed by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence. The second appeal, Criminal Appeal No.1484 of 2003, was preferred by the State seeking enhancement of the punishment. The prosecution case was that on 11.07.1989, the deceased Aher Karsan Ranmal and one Naran Saiwa were traveling on a motorcycle towards village Saiwa when all the accused, in furtherance of common intention, restrained and illegally confined the deceased. Accused nos. 1 and 2 were armed with sticks having nodes, and accused no.3 was armed with a hoe. They took the deceased to a corner of the road near a cross-road and inflicted incessant blows on his body with the sticks and hoe, knowing that such injuries would cause death. The deceased died six days later due to the injuries. The accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC, but were convicted for a lesser offence. The appellants contended before the High Court that the FIR mentioned stick blows on the legs, but later statements referred to stones and a hoe, creating material contradictions. They argued that the eye-witnesses did not support the prosecution, the statements of interested witnesses were recorded after a three-day delay without explanation, no dying declaration was recorded despite the deceased surviving for six days, and the FIR was registered at the hospital without a doctor certifying the complainant's fitness. The medical evidence was challenged as contradictory, with one doctor finding 11 injuries and another 25, and the cause of death was attributed to gangrene resulting from diabetes and lack of proper treatment rather than the assault. The appellants alleged false implication due to a civil land dispute between family members. The State opposed the appeal, contending that though independent eye-witnesses turned hostile, the son, nephew, and uncle of the deceased were promptly informed by the pillion rider, the police arrived immediately, the injured himself named the assailants and gave a complaint, and the medical evidence corroborated the injuries. The State relied on the principle that minor discrepancies should not discredit the prosecution case, citing Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka. The High Court, after hearing arguments, proceeded to examine the medical evidence, noting the testimony of PW1 Dr. S.V. Sapriya who detailed 11 injuries observed on the deceased when brought to the Primary Health Centre on the evening of the incident. The judgment excerpt ends during the recording of the doctor's testimony, without a final decision being recorded.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act was valid given the alleged contradictions in medical evidence and lack of corroboration from eye-witnesses; and whether the sentence ought to be enhanced as per the State's appeal.
