Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 450
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.S. Jhaveri & G.B. Shah, JJ.
Taher Vajiyuddin Rangwala and Others – Appellants
Vs.
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2929 of 2008
Decided On : 03-03-2016
For the Appellant :P.P. Majmudar and S.P. Majmudar, Advocates.
For the Respondent: H.S. Soni, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, last seen together theory, and the conduct of the accused to establish guilt in a murder case.
Headnote:
Conviction - Offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code - [MURDER] - [CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY] - [Sections 302, 201, 120(B) of IPC] - The court discussed the chain of circumstantial evidence, last seen together theory, and the conduct of the accused to establish their guilt. The court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of the deceased, who was drowned in a river. The prosecution presented evidence of a criminal conspiracy to murder the deceased due to personal animosity. The accused were last seen with the deceased and failed to inform the family about the incident. The medical evidence supported the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the chain of circumstantial evidence, last seen together theory, and the conduct of the accused. The court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.
Issues: The main issues were the establishment of a criminal conspiracy, the last seen together theory, and the conduct of the accused after the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the chain of circumstantial evidence, last seen together theory, and the conduct of the accused to establish their guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of the trial court were confirmed. The accused were directed to surrender to serve the remaining period of sentence, with the possibility of remission after serving 14 years.
K.S. Jhaveri, J.
1. The appellants in the instant case, assail their conviction for commission of offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code by the judgment and order of sentence dated 21st October, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat at Vyara in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2007 whereby they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also been imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Again for default of payment of fine, it has been directed that they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 of IPC. So far as Section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code is concerned, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and imposed fine of Rs. 2000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for two months. The accused have also been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and have been imposed fine of Rs. 1000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit of set off has also been granted to the appellants.
2. The case of the prosecution is in a narrow compass and is briefly encapsulated hereunder:-
"2.1 As per the original complaint, the appellants herein hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder one Salimbhai (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) who happens to be the brother of the complainant. On 17.07.2006, in the morning hours, the appellants had told the deceased that they had to go to Ankleshwar to play a game of volleyball and the appellants allegedly took the deceased to the house of in-laws of appellant No. 2 and while returning to Surat, they went near the bank of river Purna in Vankla village. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants and deceased went to the village with a view to take bath in Purna river and at around 04.30 pm, near the check dam of the said river, the appellants gave alcohol to the deceased and drowned the deceased in the river. It is the case of the prosecution that as per the original complaint, the deceased had a love affair with the sister of appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 had a grudge against the deceased with regard to certain fights which had taken place over a game of cricket.
2.2 Thereafter, a phone call was received by ASI Naginbhai Chaudhary on 17.07.2006 with regard to certain persons gathering near the place of incident as the body of deceased had got caught in the flow of river. Thereafter, the original complainant gave a statement on 18.07.2006 and the case was initially registered as an accident case. However, the original complainant thereafter gave applications to the DSP (Rural) against the present appellants. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant doubted the involvement of the appellants and therefore an FIR was registered in that regard. Accordingly, investigation was carried out and during the course of investigation, the appellants were apprehended. A charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court.
2.3 The trial was initiated against the appellants and during the course of trial the prosecution examined following witnesses whose evidence have been read before us:-
PW No.
Name of Witness
Exhibit
1.
Dr. Vipulbhai Gamit
9
2.
Nareshbhai Gamit
17
3.
Fatehsinh Chaudhary
19
4.
Ramanbhai Bharti
21
5.
Shaikh Shabbir Mansoor
23
6.
Ishwarbhai Gamit
27
7.
Ukajibhai Kotvaliya
28
8.
Navinbhai Kotvaliya
29
9.
Shardaben Gamit
30
10.
Manishbhai Gamit
31
11.
Jayaben Gamit
32
12.
Mahmad Desai
34
13.
Yasmin alias Munni Usmanbhai Desai
40
14.
V.M. Jadeja
41
15.
Sabera Desai
46
16.
B.Z. Patel
47
