PATHUBHA GOVINDJI RATHOD Vs STATE OF GUJARAT
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,PRAFULLA C. PANT
Case number: Crl.A. No.-002282-002282 / 2014
Diary number: 31080 / 2014
Advocates: TULIKA PRAKASH Vs
Page 1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2282 OF 2014
Pathubha Govindji Rathod & Anr ... Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order
dated 30.6.2014 passed by High Court of Gujarat whereby
the said Court has partly allowed the criminal appeals arisen
out of Sessions Case No. 85 of 2003 and the cross Sessions
Case No. 53 of 2004, which were decided by two separate
orders of the same date, i.e., 5.10.2007 by Additional
Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Junagarh.
Page 2
2
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Satish
Jotva (PW-42) used to live with his family in Village Arena.
On 2.9.2003 his uncle Bhurabhai Jivabhai (PW-46) was going
to his field on a bicycle. At about 10.30 a.m., he was
intercepted by Pathubha Govindji Rathod (appellant no. 1)
near bus stand. Accused/appellant no.1 picked up a quarrel
with Bhurabha Jivabhai as to why he supported Natha
Nagabhai (one of the deceased) in Gram Panchayat Election
with whom the accused/appellant no.1 was not having
cordial relations. Meanwhile Natha Nagabhai came there and
joined Bhurabhai Jivabhai in the quarrel. This led heated
exchange of words between both the sides, and crowd
gathered there. Accused/Appellant no.1 was joined by his
other supporters (co-accused), who were armed with deadly
weapons like swords, knives and sticks. Out of the accused
persons, accused Pathubha Govindji was armed with
revolver, and accused Bhavubhai Gagubhai, Bhuraji Gaguji,
Page 3
3
Kirit Jesing and Punjaji Muluji were armed with swords.
Accused Mala Gaguji was armed with knife. Rest of the
accused Gaguji Manji, Gomubha Halarwadi, Navalsinh
Motisinh, Kanubha Jesangji, Dhiru Jesing, Kiritsinh Punjajai,
Veraji Punjaji, Jayubha, Samatsinh, Sidharajsinh Manji,
Bharat Manji, Kanu Bhai Devu bhai and accused/appellant
no.2 Hemubha Govindji were armed with sticks. On hearing
the noise, complainant Satish Jiva Jotva (PW-42) and his
another uncle Bhimshi Jiva (PW-47), father of the
complainant Hamir Nagabhai (another deceased), Malde
Nagabhai (PW-43), Bhurabhai Jivabhai (PW-46), Punjabhai
Bhimshibhai (PW-44), Jagmal Jivabhai (PW-45) and some
other villagers also gathered there. When the quarrel
further aggravated between the two sides,
accused/appellant no.1 Pathubha Govindji exhorted his
supporters to kill Natha Nagabhai and teach lesson to other
supporters. Thereafter, accused/appellant no.1 Pathubha
Govindji himself took out revolver from his pocket and fired
at him. Natha Nagabhai suffered bullet injuries on the
stomach and fell down. In the incident, Bhimshibhai who
Page 4
4
was attacked with sword suffered injury on his head.
Bhavubhai Gagubhai assaulted Punja Bhimshi with sword in
his hand, and he also suffered injury on his head. Punjaji
gave blow to Bharat Jiva on his head, Gomubha Halarwala
gave blow on the head of Jagmal Jiva. Accused/appellant
no.2 Hemubha Govindji inflicted injury with sword on the
head of Hamir Nagabhai. Accused Malde Nagabhai Jotva
assaulted with stick to some other persons. Several persons
suffered injuries in the incident on both sides. According to
prosecution, after the incident complainant took his uncle
Natha Nagabhai on his motor cycle to Mangrol Government
Hospital, and other injured persons were also taken on
rickshaw to said Hospital for medical treatment. Out of the
injured Natha Nagabhai, Bhimshi Jivabhai, Hamir Nagabhai,
Bhura Jivabhai, Malde Nagabhai, Punjabhai Bhimshibhai,
Jagmal Jivabhai were shifted to Junagarh Hospital for further
treatment. In the incident Natha Nagabhai and Hamir
Nagabhai succumbed to the injuries and died.
Page 5
5
4. A complaint was given by Satish Jiva Jotva regarding
the incident on the basis of which ICR No. 70 of 2003 was
registered at Mangrol Police Station. A cross version of
incident (ICR No. 71 of 2003) was also registered by the
police. After investigation, charge sheets were filed by the
police against both set of accused. Sessions Trial No. 85 of
2003 relates to the charge sheet filed against
accused/appellants Pathubha Govindji Rathod and Hemubha
Govindji Rathod and eighteen others. After hearing the
parties in the aforesaid sessions case, a charge was framed
by the trial court against all the twenty accused in respect of
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149,
307 r/w 149, 326 r/w 149, 325 r/w 149, 324 r/w 149 and 506
(2) r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of
the Bombay Police Act. Accused/appellant no.1 Pathubha
Govindji was further charged in respect of offence
punishable under Section 25(1)(a) and Section 27 of Arms
Act. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
Page 6
6
5. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 Dr. M.G.
Satrodiya, PW-2 Dr. Linesh Makwana, PW-3 Dr. Anil
Sakhiyani, PW-4 Naran Punja, PW-5 Desha Devshi, PW-6
Nasinghbhai Nensibhai, PW-7 Parsottambhai Savjibhai, PW-8
Ratibhai Khimjibhai, PW-9 Nagabhai Hirabhai, PW-10
Virambhai Kanabhai, PW-11 Hardas Desa, PW-12 Arjan
Govindbhai, PW-13 Vikram Arjanbhai, PW-14 Bhikhabhai
Virabhai, PW-15 Mansukh Amarsinh, PW-16 Lakhabhai
Pethabhai, PW-17 Laxmanbhai Makwana, PW-18 Rasulkhan
Gulamkhan, PW-19 Razak Ismail, PW-20 Hanif Ibrahim, PW-
21 Ali Giga, PW-22 Ismail Hussain, PW-23 Gova Parbat, PW-
24 Kanjibhai Karsanbhai, PW-25 Hasmukh Raja, PW-26
Karmanbhai Jethabhai, PW-27 Arjan Parbat, PW-28 Musabhai
Allarakha, PW-29 Amadbhai Musabhai, PW-30 Dhirubhai
Naranbhai, PW-31 Mohanlal Khimjibhai, PW-32 Mamadbhai
Ismail, PW-33 Ibrahim Kasam, PW-34 Atul Prabhudas, PW-35
Dr. Jigna Dave, PW-36 Dr. Kartik Modha, PW-37 Bhanji
Vashram, PW-38 Ranchhodbhai Rathod, PW-39 Dr.
Bhalchandra Joshi, PW-40 Dr. Jitendra Gajera, PW-41 Dr. P.B.
Nariyani, PW-42 Satishbhai Bhimsinh Jothwa (complainant),
Page 7
7
PW-43 Malde Naga (injured), PW-44 Punjabhai Bjhimsinhbhai
(injured), PW-45 Jagmal Jivabhai, PW-46 Bhurabhai Jivabhai
(injured), PW-47 Bhimsinhbhai Jivabhai (injured), PW-48
Chandrakant Natwarlal, PW-49 Mahipatbhai Bhikhubha, PW-
50 Ravjibhai Valjibhai, PW-51 Jayeshbhai Tapubhai, PW-52
Karsanbhai Gangabhai, PW-53 Subhashbhai Vadhera, PW-54
Hasmukhlal Aahir, PW-55 Arjanbhai Meraman, PW-56
Harishchandra Trivedi, PW-57 Bharatbhai Mistri, PW-58
Vishnukumar Vyas, PW-59 Manharlal Mehta (Investigating
Officer), and PW-60 Kalekhan Kureshi (Investigating Officer).
6. The trial court put oral evidence of above witnesses and
documentary evidence including medical reports, inquest
reports, post mortem reports of Natha Nagabhai and that of
Hamirbhai Nagabhai, complaint, serologist report and
chemical analyst report to the accused under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. In reply to the prosecution evidence accused stated
that evidence adduced against them is incorrect. It is also
pleaded that it were the accused, who were attacked by the
complainant and his supporters. In defence, it was brought
Page 8
8
on record that serious injury was caused by Hamir Naga
(deceased) to accused/appellant no.1 Pathubha Govindji,
with a knife. It is also brought on record that from the side
of accused/appellants, Gumansinh Motibha, Juvan Singh
Gogubha, Punjaji Muluji, Navalsinh, Pathubha (present
appellant no. 1), and Punja Bhimshi suffered injuries. It is
also established that in cross Sessions Case No. 53 of 2004,
witnesses of present case, namely, Malde Nagabhai Jotva,
Bhimshi Jivabhai Jotva, Jagmal Jivabhai Jotva, Bhurabhai
Jivabhai Jotva, Punjabhai Bhimshibhai Jotva are accused, who
assaulted the accused of the present case. Due to death of
Hamir Naga, his name did not figure in charge-sheet as an
accused in the said sessions case.
7. After hearing the parties, learned Sessions Judge
decided both the sessions trials by two separate orders of
the same date and recorded conviction against the accused
in both the cross cases. In Sessions Case No. 53 of 2004 the
five accused, namely, Malde Nagabhai Jotva, Bhimshi
Jivabhai Jotva, Jagmal Jivabhai Jotva, Bhurabhai Jivabhai
Page 9
9
Jotva, Punjabhai Bhimshibhai Jotva were convicted by the
trial court under Sections 323, 324, 325, 147,148 all read
with Section149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135
of the Bombay Police Act. Each one of accused in said
Sessions Case No. 53 of 2004 was sentenced to undergo five
years’ simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/-
under Section 326 r/w Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment
for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-
under Section 324 r/w Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment
for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-
under Section 147 r/w Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment
for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under
Section 325 r/w Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment for a
period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under
Section 148 r/w Section 149 IPC.
8. On the other hand, in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2005 in
which the present appellants were accused, the trial court
convicted and sentenced each of the twenty accused under
Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, and 324 all r/w Section 149 IPC,
Page 10
10
to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- under Section 302 r/w Section 149 IPC,
imprisonment for seven years and directed to pay a fine of
Rs.2500/- under Section 307 r/w Section 149 IPC,
imprisonment for a period of five years and directed to pay a
fine of Rs.2500/- under Section 326 r/w Section 149 IPC.
Similar sentence was passed against each of them under
section 325 r/w Section 149 IPC. As to the offence under
Section 324 r/w Section 149 IPC each one was sentenced to
imprisonment for one year and directed to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/-. Similar sentence was passed under Section 147
r/w Section 149 IPC. On the count of charge of offence
punishable under Section 148 r/w Section 149 IPC each one
of twenty accused was sentenced to imprisonment for a
period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/-.
Under Section 506 r/w Section 149 IPC, the trial court
sentenced each convict to imprisonment for a period of
seven years and directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. The trial
Court further convicted accused/appellant no.1 Pathubha
Govindji under Section 27 of Arms Act, and sentenced him to
Page 11
11
imprisonment for a period of three years and directed to pay
a fine of Rs.2500/-.
9. Criminal Appeal No. 1391 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal
No.1394 of 2007 were filed by the convicts of Sessions Case
No. 85 of 2003, and Criminal Appeal No. 1244 of 2007 was
filed by the convicts of Sessions Case No. 53 of 2004, before
the High Court. All the three appeals were decided by the
High Court by common judgment challenged before us. The
High Court decided three appeals with following directions:
“26. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is passed;
(I) All the three appeals are partly allowed.
(II) Insofar as Criminal Appeal No.1391/2007 and1394/2007 are concerned, the judgment and order passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No.85/2003 dated 05.10.2007 is modified to the extent that original accused no.1Pathubha is convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The order regarding fine and default sentence is not disturbed qua original accused no.1. It is also clarified that punishment of imprisonment for life imposed upon original accused no.1 shall not mean imprisonment till last breath and that the State may grant the accused benefit of remission
Page 12
12
at the appropriate time. His conviction and sentence u/s.27 of the Arms Act is also confirmed.
Insofar as original accused no.2 Hemubha is concerned, his conviction is altered to one punishable u/s.304 Part1 IPC instead of Section 307 r/w. Section 149 IPC. For conviction u/s.304 Part1 IPC, original accused no.2 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Ten years. The order regarding fine and default sentence is not disturbed qua original accused no.2. The jail report shows that original accused no.2 is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is ordered to surrender to custody within a period of Ten Weeks from today.
Out of original accused no.3 to 20, original accused no.5, original accused no.13 and original accused no.16 have expired. Therefore, the appeals stand abated qua the said three accused persons.
Insofar as the remaining accused persons are concerned, viz. original accused no.3, 4, 6 to 9, 11 to 12 and 14, 15 and 17 to 20, their conviction is altered to one punishable u/s.323 IPC without the aid of Section 149 IPC. For conviction u/s.323 IPC, the sentence already undergone by each of the accused persons is ordered to be treated as sufficient sentence and each of the accused is ordered to pay fine of Rs.2500/. None of the accused person is required to undergo any further sentence in respect of the offence in question. The above accused persons are on bail and hence, their bail bonds stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged.
Rest of the impugned judgment and order remains unaltered.
Page 13
13
(III) Insofar as Criminal Appeal No.1244/2007 is concerned, the judgment and order passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Junagadh in Sessions Case No.53/2004 dated 05.10.2007 is modified whereby, each of the five accused persons, viz. original accused no.1 to 5, is convicted u/s. 323 IPC without the aid of Section 149 IPC. Their conviction, accordingly, stands altered to one punishable u/s.323 IPC. For conviction u/s.323 IPC, the sentence already undergone by each of the five accused persons is ordered to be treated as sufficient sentence and each of the accused is ordered to pay fine of Rs.2500/. None of the accused person is required to undergo further sentence in respect of the offence in question. The above accused persons are on bail and hence, their bail bonds stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged.
Rest of the impugned judgment and order remains unaltered.”
10. The present appeal has been filed before us by way of
Special Leave Petition, by two of the above convicts, namely,
Pathubha Govindji Rathod and Hemubha Govindji Rathod.
11. The only point pressed and argued before us in this
appeal is that the courts below have erred in law in not
accepting the plea of private defence taken by appellant
no.1. It is argued that the accused/appellant no.1 was
Page 14
14
assaulted with a knife and suffered the injury on the vital
part, as such he has a right of private defence to save his
person. It is further contended that charge relating to
causing death of Natha Bhai with a fire arm, even if proved,
is covered by Exception 2 of Section 300 IPC.
12. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellants. Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC
reads as under: -
“Exception 2.-Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.”
13. It is not disputed in the present case that there are
cross versions of the incident, and cross complaints were
lodged with the police. It is also not disputed that in both
the cases police submitted charge sheets against both set of
accused. It is also evident from the record that both
Sessions Case No 85 of 2003 and Sessions Case No. 53 of
Page 15
15
2004 resulted in conviction on conclusion of trial by
Additional Sessions Judge, Junagarh. Considering the
number of persons involved in the incident it can be safely
said that it is a case of free fight between two groups of
people. It is settled principle of law that in the cases of free
fights accused are to be fastened with individual liability
taking into consideration the specific role assigned to each
one of them, and normally right of private defence is not
available in such cases unless circumstances in a given case
warrant so.
14. A person faced with injury with a deadly weapon to his
life cannot be expected to weigh in balance the precise force
needed to avoid danger. Referring to case of Bhanwar
Singh v. State of M.P.1, this Court, in State of Rajasthan
v. Manoj Kumar2, has observed as under: -
“15.3. In Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P., it has been ruled to the effect that for a plea of right of private defence to succeed in totality, it must be proved that there existed a right to private defence in favour of the accused, and that this right extended to causing death; and if the court
1 (2008) 16 SCC 657 2 (2014) 5 SCC 744
Page 16
16
were to reject the said plea, there are two possible ways in which this may be done i.e. on one hand, it may be held that there existed a right to private defence of the body, however, more harm than necessary was caused or, alternatively, this right did not extend to causing death and in such a situation it would result in the application of Section 300 Exception 2 IPC.”
15. In Mohd. Khalil Chisti v. State of Rajasthan3, this
court has observed in para 42 as follows: -
“42. The analysis of the materials clearly shows that two versions of the incident adduced by the prosecution are discrepant with each other. In such a situation where the prosecution leads two sets of evidence each one which contradicts and strikes at the other and shows it to be unreliable, the result would necessarily be that the court would be left with no reliable and trustworthy evidence upon which the conviction of the accused might be based. Though the accused would have the benefit of such situation and the counsel appearing for the appellants prayed for acquittal of the appellants of all the charges, in view of the principles which we have already discussed, we are of the view that each accused can be fastened with individual liability taking into consideration the specific role or part attributed to each of the accused. In other words, both sides can be convicted for their individual acts and normally no right of private defence is available to either party and they will be guilty of their respective acts”.
16. No doubt normally the right of private defence is not
available to either of the parties in incidents of group 3 (2013) 2 SCC 541
Page 17
17
fighting, but that is not a rule without exception. In the case
at hand, we have a special circumstance where the injured
person (appellant no. 1) who was given 2cm x 2cm x 1.5cm
deep knife blow on his back (scapular region) has retorted
by using licensed firearm, and killed one of his rivals in the
same incident. Accused/appellant Pathubha Govindji has
taken plea of private defence right from beginning of the
trial. From the judgment of the trial court also, it is clear
that the plea of private defence was taken by the appellant
no.1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case and evidence on record, it is evident that
accused/appellant no.1 Pathubha Govindji Rathod who
suffered knife injury in the incident has caused death of one
of the deceased by firing several shots thereby exceeding
right of private defence. Injuries suffered by both the sides
are on record.
17. In the above circumstances, from the evidence, as
discussed above, we are inclined to accept the argument
that it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder covered under Exception 2 of Section 300 of IPC.
Page 18
18
Therefore, after weighing the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and going through the papers on
record, we are of the opinion that appeal of the
accused/appellant no. 1 deserves to be allowed partly.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction
and sentence recorded against accused/appellant no.1
under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is set
aside. Instead he (accused/appellant no.1 Pathubha
Govindji Rathod) is convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC
and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of ten years
and directed to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment
of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further
period of six months. He is reported to have undergone
nine years and six months of imprisonment. He shall serve
out unserved part of the sentence. The conviction and
sentence recorded against accused/appellant no. 2
Hemubha Govindji Rathod under Section 304 Part I read
with Section 149 IPC, does not require any interference.
18. The appeal stands disposed of.
Page 19
19
………………………………J. [Dipak Misra]
………………………………J. [Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi, January 21 , 2015.