Gujarat High Court Upholds Life Sentence In Decade-Old Murder Case, Relies On Consistent Eyewitness And Scientific Evidence

The Gujarat High Court upheld trial court's murder conviction awarded to a man who had shot at the deceased with an unlicensed firearm, after noting that there was consistent evidence supporting that the shot was fired with intention and knowledge to cause death. A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachhani in its order said:"The fact that the accused had no license for the firearm, gave no explanation for possessing it, and that the gunshot fired by him caused the death of the deceased is clearly proved. The time, place and motive of the incident are fully supported by consistent oral, medical, documentary and scientific evidence, as to the fact of the appellant-accused No.1 having fired the fatal shot with intention and knowledge, thereby committing murder under Section 302 of IPC and the offence under Section 25(1B) (a) of the Arms Act. The conviction and sentence against the said accused does not warrant any interference.Thus, all the issues and contentions raised herein, while referring and taking us to the depositions of several witnesses, so also the documentary evidence followed by the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Court, it transpires that the same has been arrived at by the learned Sessions Court is in consonance with the occullar as well as the documentary evidence".The court rejected the accused contentions regarding discrepancies in the injuries likely to be caused by a different weapon while citing entry wounds and exit wounds, followed by the recovery of the weapon. The court said took note of expert opinions, regarding the nature of the injuries as well as opinion of the Doctors and said that it does not support the accused's contentions. It further said that as per the record the accused was in possession of a firearm and had fired from it, which caused death of the deceased. The accused has not taken any defence that he had a valid government license to possess the firearm. In his additional statement, he did not give any explanation as to how the firearm came into his possession.The court was hearing the accused's appeal against trial court order convicting him in a murder case and sentencing him to life. It was alleged that the deceased–accompanied by the complainant who was his friend, had gone to demand money from accused. Knowing fully well that his act was likely to cause death of the deceased, with an intention to cause his death, the accused had fired a shot from an unlicensed country-made single barrel gun at the deceased causing fatal injuries. The incident occurred in violation of the prohibitory order under the Arms Act issued by the District Magistrate, Jamnagar, which was in force at the relevant time and place. The appellant argued that there was no independent evidence to support the incident and so called consistency in the statements of the witnesses had no value because all these witnesses were relatives of the deceased and their evidence is only based on what the complainant allegedly told them after the incident.The State said that the accused was convicted based on natural, consistent and reliable testimony of the complainant who gave a clear and detailed account of the entire incident. Further his statement was supported by testimonies of witnesses. The high court found that the deposition of the complainant as natural, consistent, and trustworthy, holding that he had given a clear and detailed account of the entire sequence of events from the pan shop to the incident and the escape of the accused after the firing and attempted assault. It said that he had clearly identified both accused persons in Court as the persons involved in the incident and has also identified the country-made gun and the stick used in the offence. His cross-examination did not create any doubt on important aspects, and he has firmly denied all contrary suggestions put forth by the defence. The presence of blood stains on the ground and grass at the spot, as stated by him, also supports his presence at the place of the incident, the court said. "Therefore, we find that the testimony of this sole eyewitness is fully reliable and trustworthy, and the learned Sessions Court has correctly relied on it while recording the finding as to the guilt against the accused. We find no reason to reject or doubt this testimony," the court said. The court also found that the version of the witnesses was same as the complainant's and found no improvements, exaggerations or contradictions in their testimonies. It upheld the Sessions Court order for correctly evaluating the evidence on record. The court dismissed the appeal. Case title: NAMORI HAJIBHAI BUKERA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 2597 of 2022Click Here To Read/Download Order

Gujarat High Court Upholds Life Sentence In Decade-Old Murder Case, Relies On Consistent Eyewitness And Scientific Evidence

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags