Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the order of the High Court of Gujarat and supported the decision of the Trial court . The High Court on perverse ground had overturned the acquittal of the accused to conviction thereby sentencing them to life imprisonment .
The appellant i.e. Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda and his father were accused of assaulting Punjabhai with sticks and pipes, the blow of which ultimately caused the death of Punjabhai. Dhanabhai, the brother of the deceased, claimed that the deceased Punjabhai was engaged in a conflict with the accused relating to the diamond polishing business. On 17th September 1996,when Punjabhai the deceased was sitting in his pan bidi shop, the both accused had assaulted him . When Dhanabhai got the news he went to his village Jhanjhmer. He met his uncle who along with Karshanbhai (PW-4),Dayabhai, Jivabhai and other villagers were sitting in the tempo to take Punjabhai to the hospital of Dr. Goti for treatment at Dhola Village.As per his advice, the deceased was immediately shifted to Bhavnagar in a private hospital where he died.
The accused were charged under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial, Session Court on 5th July 1997 had acquitted the accused from the charges. In response to it the State of Gujarat i.e the respondent appealed before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court interfered and converted the acquittal of the appellants into a conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 and Section 323 of the IPC.On 18th May 2020, the High Court rejected the bail application.
The High Court observed that the statement of the impugned judgment, held that in his police statement, PW-4, hadcorrectly stated that he was injured on 18th September 1996. Therefore, the statement he gave before the Court and the statement given by the doctor were meaningless. The number of person who witnessed the examination were not examined. The accused had no sufficient evidence to adduce the falsification of prosecution. Therefore the High Court of Gujarat had overturned the acquittal of the accused to conviction causing them to undergo life imprisonment
The accused appealed before the Supreme Court against the impugned order of the High Court of Gujarat. The Supreme Court of India held that the appellate Court should reappreciate all the evidences which was considered by the trial court. The High Court had not adhered to the general principle of presumption of innocence for the accused until the evidence proves the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. . Secondly, the approach of High Court on the burden of proof was wrong as in the absence of the statutory provision, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution but the High Court only considered that the accused failed to adduce sufficient evidence to proof their innocence. The burden of proof was somewhere initially shifted to the accused which was against the law of land.
There was no evidence about the presence of PW- 4 ( Karshanbhai) at the time of the incident who claimed that the accused had also given him the blow on the same day as the accused at 8 p.m. but the PW- 4 had not inform the police about the attack and the Dr who treated him also stated that it is evident from the wound that it was inflicted on 18th September, 1996 and not on the same day as that of the deceased. Further PW- 4 had an ongoing land litigation with the accused. Therefore the Coyrt discarded the statement of PW- 4 on ground that statements of PW-4 and the Doctor before the Court became meaningless. As is apparent from Section 162 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), statements recorded by police under Section 161 of the CrPC cannot be used for any purpose except to contradict the witness. Other ground was lack of confidence of the Court on the statement of PW- 4. Even the Vajsurbhai, who informed PW-1 about the assault on the deceased, has not been examined as a witness
Therefore the appeal was granted and order of the Trial court was restored as there was no sufficient evidence for the High Court of Gujarat to overturn the order of acquittal with conviction. The bail bond of the Appellant No, 2 stood cancel and Appeallant No.1 was set free except if his detention is required in connection to some other case.
Case Title : Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr VS State of Gujarat, Crimial Appeal No.334 OF 2019
Written by: Ayesha Hussain, College name : Surendranath Law College, 4th year B.A.LL.B(HONS), Intern under Legal Vidhiya
REFERENCES
https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?
https://www.supremecourtcases.com/bhupatbhai-bachubhai-chavda-and
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
