Thakore Umedsing Nathusing vs State of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 223

B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
Thakore Umedsing Nathusing – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, AOR Mr. Mohd. Asad Khan, Adv. Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Adv. Ms. Himadri Haksar, Adv. Mr. Himadri Haksar, Adv. Mr. Narayan Dev Parashar, Adv. Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

The case involves an appeal against conviction related to a criminal offense, specifically under Section 392 IPC, which pertains to robbery and theft, including the murder and looting of a jeep (!) (!) .
The original trial court convicted the accused for the offense under Section 392 IPC but acquitted them of more serious charges such as murder (Section 302 IPC), dacoity with murder (Section 396 IPC), and related offenses (Section 397 IPC) (!) .
The prosecution's case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, including recoveries of weapons, blood-stained clothes, and a blood-stained jeep. However, critical evidence such as the ownership of the jeep and forensic analysis of recovered articles was either not established or not conducted (!) (!) .
The key recovery of the jeep was attributed to the first accused, but the evidence supporting this was challenged due to procedural irregularities and inadmissibility of confessional statements recorded by police officers, which are protected under Evidence Act provisions (!) (!) .
The court noted that the confessional statement made by the first accused, which implicated others, was inadmissible in evidence, and the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the accused and the commission of murder beyond mere presence or circumstantial suspicion (!) (!) (!) .
The appellate court emphasized the principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence, including the necessity of establishing a complete chain of evidence that excludes reasonable hypotheses of innocence. It also highlighted that the appellate court should only interfere if the only logical conclusion is guilt beyond reasonable

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. These appeals take exception to the common judgment dated 11th December, 2015 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 949 of 1994 and 1012 of 1993.

2. The appellants being the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 namely Thakore Laxmansing Halsing (hereinafter being referred to as A1), Thakore Pravinsing Rajsing(hereinafter being referred to as A2), Thakore Umedsing Nathusing (hereinafter being referred to as A3), Thakore Khemsing Halsing(hereinafter being referred to as A5) alongwith original accused No. 4, namely, Thakore Prabhatsing Kapursing (hereinafter being referred to as A4), were tried in Sessions Case Nos. 107 and 143 of 1990 respectively by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’). The accused appellants were convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and were sentenced to undergo 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo further three months simple imprisonment. The learned trial Court acquitted accused appellant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 223

B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTAThakore Umedsing Nathusing – AppellantVersusState of Gujarat – Respondent

B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
Thakore Umedsing Nathusing – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent