Vankar Vs. State of Gujarat
O R D E R
The High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.301 of 1998 has affirmed the judgment
and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in
Sessions Case No.32 of 1996. Being aggrieved by these judgments and orders, the
appellant is before us in this appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
initially, would submit that the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial
Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') requires to
be converted into an offence under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C.
In support of that
submission, learned counsel has taken us through a portion of the evidence and the
conclusions reached by both the Trial Court and the High Court. In our view, it
would be suffice to refer only to para 31 of the judgment of the High Court to
find out whether the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant requires
to be accepted. Para 31 of the judgment of the High Court reads as under "31.
Viewed in the light of the aforesaid decision, in the instant case it is true
that the respondent had dealt one single blow on the head of the deceased with a
The said wooden
pestle was 39= inches in length and was thick at the lower end and narrow at the
upper end. The circumference of the upper end (handle) of the pestle was about
4=inches. There was a steel ring fitted on it at the lower end. The act of the
respondent, though solitary in number had caused multiple fractures on the skull
of the deceased leading to almost instantaneous death. Any reasonable person with
any stretch of imagination can come to the conclusion that such injury on such a
vital part of the body with such a weapon would cause death.
The injury sustained by
the deceased not only exhibits the intention of the accused in causing the death
of the victim but also the knowledge of the accused as to the likely
consequence of such attack which could be none other than causing the death of
the victim. In the circumstance, the contention raised by the learned Advocate for
the accused that this was a case of a solitary blow and therefore, intention to
kill was not established so as to bring the accused within the scope of exception
to Section 300 IPC cannot be accepted.
being no question of taking any other view, the decisions relied upon by the
learned counsel for the appellant in support of the proposition that when two views
are possible, the view that favours the accused ought to be considered do not
render any assistance to the case of the appellant...." It is the case of the
Prosecution that P.W.4, with the help of a bamboo stick had meddled with a live
wire and thereby, had caused the disappearance of the electricity supply to the
house of the accused.
It is further the case
of the Prosecution that the accused came out of his house with a long pestle
and was quarreling with P.W.4. At this juncture, Maganbhai Khemabhai (since deceased)
appeared in the scene and tried to pacify P.W.4 and the accused. The accused was
not happy because of the intervention of Maganbhai Khemabhai (since deceased),
therefore, he had pushed him.
Further, the accused caught
hold of the pestle, which had fallen down and he used it with such force that
the head of the deceased person was broken into pieces. These aspects of the matter
have been taken note of by both the Sessions Court as well as by the High Court
to convict and sentence the accused person for an offence under Section 302 of
In our opinion, we do
not see any error or legal infirmity in the findings and conclusions reached by
both the Courts. Therefore, no interference in the said orders and judgments is
called for. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction and the sentence awarded
by the Trial Court, we reject this appeal. Ordered accordingly.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)