[Murder] Unnatural That Complainant Did Nothing To Save Deceased From Accused, Appears To Be False Case Due To Enmity: Gujarat HC Upholds Acquittal

"The evidence of all the main witnesses is contradictory to each other, which is rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. As a result, the judgement delivered by the Sessions Judge is sound on the aspect of law and facts. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution before the trial court has been rightly appreciated by the trial court. No apparent error on the face of the record is found from the judgement."

It was the Complainant's case that the deceased was attacked with blows from a dhariya, an axe and sticks by the Accused persons. The informant had thereafter intervened and taken the deceased to the hospital where he expired. Upon completion of the investigation and the trial, the Sessions Court acquitted the Accused. The tate then preferred the instant appeal.

Firstly, the High Court reiterated that the scope of acquittal appeals is limited as the presumption of innocence was stronger in favour of the Accused. Keeping the limited scope of interference, the High Court observed that the Complainant had heard about the incident and arrived at the place of occurrence after the incident took place. Yet, there were no blood stains on their clothes even though they had put the deceased in a tractor and transported him to the hospital. The Bench expressed doubt whether they had tried to save the deceased since they had received no injury, either. Their conduct was 'unnatural' per the Bench. Accordingly, the Complainant was not considered an 'eyewitness' by the High Court.

"It is not believable that the accused have beaten the deceased in presence of the complainant and his brother Thakra and they both did nothing to save the deceased. Had they tried to save the deceased, they must have sustained some injury. It is not believable that the complainant permitted the accused to go freely and did not attack or beaten the accused. The conduct of the complainant is unnatural."

Further, there were other witnesses who failed to inspire confidence of the Bench since they had various criminal cases registered against them. Additionally, one such witness had claimed that that he was present during the commission of the offence, but the Complainant had not affirmed the same. Thus, there was a clear contradiction between the two witnesses.

Ultimately, the Bench found that none of the witnesses were present during the incident. They had also contradicted each other on the place of the incident­­- one claimed that there were bushes in the place of offence while another claimed that the place was open.

As a result, the Bench was constrained to conclude:

"It appears that there was enmity between the complainant and the accused and therefore, chances of implication of the accused falsely due to enmity cannot be ruled out and as all the witnesses are related to each other, they cannot be termed as independent witnesses and they are interested for getting the accused convicted. As such, the evidence of the interested witnesses cannot be relied upon in the facts of the case on hand."

Thus, no case for interference with the impugned judgement was made out.

Case No.: R/CR.A/386/1995

Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT v/s THAKORE CHAMANJI MOTIJI & 3 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 355

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment