PRADIPGIRI RAMGIRI GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2013-4-148
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on April 26,2013

Pradipgiri Ramgiri Goswami Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.R.UDHWANI, J. - (1.)THE appellant, original-accused, having been sentenced, inter alia, to life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act by impugned judgement and order dated 27.11.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 91 of 2004, is before this Court questioning the impugned judgement and order on various grounds.
(2.)THE main argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant was that the prosecution did not come out with correct and reliable facts inasmuch as the evidence on record indicates that the entire genesis of the occurrence was altered and in the First Information Report (FIR) a story different than what was testified by PW-1 and PW-2 was canvassed. He also submitted that there were various contradictions, omissions and improvements in the story of the prosecution. In FIR the offence in two parts was alleged to have taken place, at the same time, while in the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 the offence in two parts took place at two different places with a distance of 300 ft. In his submission, adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution for having changed the genesis as well as the place of occurrence.
Learned APP Mr. Soni vehemently submitted that the Court below has given cogent reasons to sustain the conviction of the appellant. There were two eye witnesses who consistently deposed about the presence of PW-1 initially and then on a call presence of PW-2 and deceased Chetan as also the presence of the appellant who entered into a quarrel with PW-1 and then while PW-1 was taking the appellant to the police station, he got released from the grip of PW-1 with the help of the people who had gathered there, went inside his house; removed the jacket; came out with deadly weapon knife and then attempted to assault initially PW-1, then PW-2 who could avoid the assault but the deceased Chetan could not escape the assault and the appellant stabbed him indiscriminately with the result deceased Chetan succumbed to the injuries in Civil Hospital. In his submission even the garments of the deceased and the appellant were blood stained with blood group AB is that of deceased as found during the scientific investigation by serological report. Learned counsel also submitted that even the weapon of offence i.e. knife was discovered from the possession of the appellant containing blood stains of the deceased and thus apart from the fact that the offence in question was witnessed by PW-1 and PW-2, there were strong circumstances against the appellant leaving no room for inference of his innocence and therefore, in his submission this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgement and order of the lower Court.

(3.)WE are not convinced with the arguments advanced by learned APP Mr. Soni as we find from the record that the prosecution canvassed two different stories at two different points of time i.e. one in the FIR and the other through the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. According to PW-1, the offence had occurred in two parts. Initially, while PW-1 was driving his vehicle and reached at cross-roads near Mohan Talkies, he found the appellant with a baby crossing the road; he blew horn, the appellant came near to him and started abusing him to which PW-1 objected; and the appellant responded by saying that he does not know how to drive the car and he should drive the car properly. This was followed by heated altercation between two during which the accused appellant is alleged to have caught hold of the collar of PW-1, pulled his gold chain and pulled him out of the vehicle and then there was a free fight. By the time people gathered and separated both of them. The accused appellant went away in a nearby street. PW-1 sought help of PW-2 by telephonically summoning him after apprising him of the occurrence. As explained by PW- 2, the deceased was with him at his shop when PW-1 asked for the help of PW-2. Therefore, PW-2 accompanied by the deceased, came on two different two wheelers at the spot of the offence and PW-1 expressed his intention to lodge complaint but PW-2 and deceased insisted to see the appellant and therefore PW-1 took both of them to the street where the appellant had gone and there he found the appellant with two other persons and pointed him out to PW-2 and the deceased. It is deposed that thereafter PW-1 with an intention to take the appellant to the police station caught hold of his one hand and also the jacket with other hand and pulled him. At that point of time the people who gathered there started tapping PW-1 on his head which resulted into loosening of the grip of PW-1 on the appellant who consequently escaped, went to his house, removed the jacket, came back with deadly weapon knife and attempted to assault initially upon PW-1 who could avoid it and then upon PW-2 who also succeeded in avoiding it and ran away to the other side of the road. It is deposed that at that point of time the deceased was sitting on his scooter, ready to drive and accused grabbed this opportunity, stabbed the deceased on his back and thus the deceased was injured and PW-2 had also gone away before that and PW-1 on sighting the deceased on the scooter, felt that he will follow him; left the scene; went to the police chowky and found Umesh PW-2 coming out of the police chowky; Umesh apprised him about severe assault on deceased Chetan which PW-2 learnt from one Pintoo who received a mobile call made by Umesh for Chetan deceased. Pintoo had advised both of them to immediately move to the emergency ward of the Civil hospital. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that PW-2 is said to have moved Civil hospital on motor bike belonging to a police constable. They reached Civil hospital, stayed there till early morning and in the meanwhile at about 1.30 in the night, the deceased expired. Ultimately, the complaint came to be lodged which is produced at Exh. 23. PW-2 in his testimony concurred with the facts stated by PW-1 to the extent of his presence.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.