Back
2014 Supreme(Guj) 4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar
State of Gujarat
Versus
Kishanbhai Etc.
Criminal Appeal No. 1485 of 2008—Decided on 07/01/2014
Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, acquittal of respondent for the offences with which he was charge sustainable.
Headnote:Head Note :
[Indian] Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) — Sections 363, 369, 376, 394 and 201 — Bombay Police Act — Section 135(1) — Kidnapping, abduction, rape and murder — Offence of — Acquittal giving benefit of doubt — Circumstantial evidence — Appreciation of — Finding as to — For the circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the respondent prosecution has mainly relied on the statements of PW 2, PW 5 and PW 6 — Court having gone through the statements of these witnesses held that in view of inconsistence and infirmities in their statements their statements have been rendered suspicious and accordingly unreliable — As a matter of fact the lack of truthfulness of the statements of witnesses has been demonstrated by means of simple logic emerging from the factual position expressed-expressed through different prosecution witnesses — The evidence to prove the charge has been systematically shattered thereby demolishing the prosecution version — More than all that is the non-production of relevant evidence which prosecution has unjustifiably with held — Further there is serious impression of fudging and paddling at the hands of the agencies involved — As a result investigating official and prosecutors involved in presenting the case have miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused — Court in the end observed that they have been instrumental in denying to serve the cause of justice and misery of the family of victim has remained unredressed.
Held :
Court has given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the appellant, which have been duly noticed in Paragraph 9 hereinabove. It is also relevant for us to record, that the learned Counsel for the appellant did not advance a single submission in addition to the contentions Court has noticed in Paragraph 9 above. The submissions advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the appellant, were sought to be supported by judgments rendered by this Court, all of which have been referred to in Paragraph 13 above. The submissions advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the appellant, based on each of the judgments cited, have also been recorded by us in the said paragraph. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, specially the glaring lapses committed in the investigation and prosecution of the case (recorded in Paragraph 11 of the instant judgment), as also the inconsistencies in the evidence produced by the prosecution (summarized in Paragraph 12 hereinabove), Court is of the considered view, that each one of the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the appellant is meritless. For the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution, primary reliance has been placed on the statements of Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW 2, Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW 5, and Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW 6. By demonstrating inconsistencies and infirmities in the statements of the above witnesses, their statements have also been rendered suspicious and accordingly unreliable. There is also a serious impression of fudging and padding at the hands of the agencies involved. As a matter of fact, the lack of truthfulness of the statements of witnesses has been demonstrated by means of simple logic emerging from the factual position expressed through different prosecution witnesses (summarized in Paragraphs 11 and 12 above). The evidence produced to prove the charges, has been systematically shattered, thereby demolishing the prosecution version. More than all that, is the non production of evidence which the prosecution has unjustifiably withheld, resulting in dashing all the States efforts to the ground. [Para 14]
Law Laid Down :
Where the circumstances proved from themselves into a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of appellant then the same can be the basis of the conviction of the accused.
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.—A complaint was lodged at Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, alleging the kidnapping/abduction of a six year old girl child Gomi daughter of Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki and Laliben on 27.2.2003 at around 6:00 p.m. by the accused Kishanbhai son of Velabhai Vanabhai Marwadi. It was alleged, that the accused had enticed Gomi with a “gola” (crushed ice, with sweet flavoured syrup), and thereupon had taken her to Jivi’s field, where he raped her. He had murdered her by inflicting injuries on her head and other parts of the body with bricks. In order to steal the “jhanjris” (anklets) worn by her, he had chopped off her feet just above her ankles. The aforesaid complaint was lodged, after the body of the deceased Gomi was found from Jivi’s field, at the instance of the accused Kishanbhai. On the receipt of the above complaint, the first information report came to be registered at Navrangpur Police Station, Ahmedabad.
2. The prosecution version which emerged consequent upon the completion of the investigation reveals, that the family of the deceased Gomi was distantly related to the family of the accused Kishanbhai. In this behalf it would be pertinent to mention that Baghabhai Naranbhai Solanki was a resident of Gulbai Tekra, in the Navrangpura area of Ahmedabad. He resided there, along with his family. For his livelihood, Baghabhai Naranbhai Solanki was running a shop in the name of Mahakali Pan Centre. The said shop was located near his residence. Baghabhai Naranbhai Solanki was running the business of selling “pan and bidi” in his shop. Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki, father of Baghabhai Naranbhai Solanki used to live in the peon’s quarters at Ambavadi in Ahmedabad. Modabhai Manabhai Solanki, uncle of Baghabhai Naranbhai Solanki, had expired. His son Devabhai’s daughter Laliben, was married to Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki. Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki and Laliben were residing at Shabamukhiwas, Gulbai Tekra in Ahmedabad. Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki and Laliben had two children, a daughter Gomi aged six years, and a son Himat aged three years. Laliben’s sister-in-law (her husband’s, elder brother’s wife) Fuliben Valabhai was residing near the residence of Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki and Laliben. Kishanbhai the accused, is the brother of Fuliben, and was residing with her. It is therefore, that the family of the deceased as also the accused, besides being distantly related, were acquainted with one another as they were residing close to one another.
3. Insofar as the occurrence is concerned, according to the prosecution, on 27.2.2003 Laliben, niece of Baghabhai, was confined to her residence, as she was expecting. At about 6:00 p.m. her daughter Gomi, then aged 6 years, had wandered out of her house. The accused Kishanbhai then aged 19 years, entice her by giving her a “gola”. Having enticed her he had carried Gomi to Jivi’s field. On the way to Jivi’s field, he stole a knife with an 8 inch blade from Dineshbhai Karsanbhai Thakore PW 6, a “dabeli” (bread/bun, with spiced potato filling) seller. Having taken Gomi to Jivi’s field he had raped her. He had then killed her by causing injuries on her head and other parts of the body with bricks. In order to remove the “jhanjris” worn by her, he had amputated her legs with the knife stolen by him, from just above her ankles. He had then covered her body with his shirt, and had left Jivi’s field. Kishanbhai the accused, then took the anklets stolen by him to Mahavir Jewellers, a shop owned by Premchand Shankerlal. He pledged the anklets at the above shop, for a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The accused Kishanbhai was confronted by Baghabhai and others constituting the search party, whilst he was on his way back to his residence. Kishanbhai, despite stating that he had not taken her away, had informed those searching for Gomi, that she could be at Jivi’s field. On the suggestion of Kishanbhai, the search party had gone to Jivi’s farm, where they found the body of Gomi.
4. B
