14 Years On, Gujarat High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case; Says It Was A 'Sudden Fight' Without Premeditation

The Gujarat High Court acquitted two men who were convicted in 2012 by a trial court for murder, observing that this was a case of sudden fight and no pre-meditation on behalf of the accused had been proved by the prosecution. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 271]

The two men were accused of assaulting the deceased, the complainant's younger brother, after a verbal argument erupted between women family members of the accused and complainant. The deceased succumbed to his injuries by the accused who were allegedly weilding a sickle, sword and an iron strip.

The trial court had convicted and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment on 09.11.2012. 

After taking note of the evidence, including the injuries caused to the deceased, a division bench of Justice Gita Gopi and Justice LS Pirzada observed:

"It appears that the complainant and the deceased brother with others and the present appellants as accused alongwith other acquitted accused must have met in front of Jagatsinh's house and the quarrel got converted into sudden fight where the complainant is shown to be armed with sickle and appellant accused No.1 Pravinsinh Vajesinh was with a sickle and appellant accused No.2 Tejendrasinh Jagatsinh was armed with sword. The Investigating Officer-PW18-Attabhai Chaudhary evidence proves that it was a case of open fight between two groups and the evidence of the IOShri. Chaudhary also proves the place of offence where he could also record the complaint of Bhupendrasinh in Civil Hospital, Himmatnagar where Bhupendrasinh and his son were under treatment.

Here the case of sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel becomes proved. There appears to be no premeditation from accused. The case of the complainant of inflicting injury on the head with sickle as well as sword does not get proved. There is only one head injury. The medical evidence records another one injury at the abdomen". 

It further said that the prosecution "failed to prove" the specific act of the accused corresponded to the injury caused  and the weapon used.

"When the injury on the head was with a single blow, then the accused who gave that single blow was required to be identified to draw the conclusion towards the offence committed. The learned trial Court Judge has committed an error by convicting the accused. When the prosecution could not prove the sole blow on the head by a definite accused, then the present appellants-accused would be entitled for benefit of doubt. In failure of satisfactorily establishing the offensive act of the accused, the conviction is required to be set aside," the court said. 

The court however rejected the plea of private defence taken by the accused noting that it was not a case wherein the appellants had any threat to their safety and it is also not the case that they had given the blow to deceased since he had come forward to hit the appellants with deadly or dangerous weapon.

The court said that under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof is on the accused who sets up the plea of self defence and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances and it is for the accused to bring necessary material on record by adducing positive evidence or by eliciting necessary facts from the witnesses examined for the prosecution.