Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.S. Jhaveri and Biren Vaishnav, JJ.
Kalidas – Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2011
Decided On : 26-04-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :HCLS Committee and Manraj A. Barot, Advocate
For the Respondents: C.M. Shah, A.P.P.
The main legal point established is the reliance on witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the accused's confession to establish guilt in a criminal case.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Law - Sections 363, 366, 376, 302 - The court discussed and referenced Sections 363, 366, 376, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The key legal provisions discussed include the punishment for kidnapping, abduction, inducing a woman for marriage, and compelling illicit intercourse, as well as the punishment for rape and murder. The court's decision was influenced by the medical evidence, witness testimonies, and the accused's confession.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for kidnapping, rape, and murder of a seven-year-old girl. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and medical reports. The accused appealed against the judgment, claiming lack of evidence and discrepancies in witness statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the accused's confession. The court reduced the sentence for rape from life imprisonment to ten years.
Issues: The issues included lack of direct evidence, discrepancies in witness statements, and admissibility of the accused's confession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the accused's confession to establish guilt. The court also considered the absence of semen or blood at the crime scene and reduced the sentence for rape based on medical evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the accused's conviction for rape was confirmed with a reduced sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment. The conviction for murder was confirmed with a clarification that life imprisonment meant 20 years of imprisonment.
K.S. Jhaveri, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2011 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2010. By the said judgment, the accused was held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 363,366, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). For the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. For offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, the accused was ordered to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of two months was imposed. The accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the accused has preferred present appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had took away the prosecutrix from the legal guardianship of her parents without their consent on 24.11.2009. It is alleged that on 24.11.2009 from 7 p.m. till 12 p.m. on 25.11.2009, the accused took her away and committed rape on her. The age of the prosecutrix at the time of offence was stated to be seven years. After committing rape, the accused killed the prosecutrix by throttling her neck. With these allegations, a complaint was filed against the accused before the police.
2.1 Upon filing of the complaint, investigation was carried out and the accused was arrested and charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to Sessions Court. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
2.2 During the trial, the prosecution had examined following witnesses:-
Sr. No.
Name
Exhibit
1
Natubhai Amasang Rathod.
15
2
Meenaben Jayantibhai Vasava.
17
3
Aayshaben Yusufbhai.
26
4
Madhuben Kalidas Vasava.
27
5
Arjunbhai Karsanbhai Prajapati.
28
6
Mohmadbhai Aadambhai Patel.
29
7
Akbar Abdul Saiyed.
6
8
Pratapsinh Raysinh Parmar.
10
9
Abdulhamid Abbas Diwan.
11
10
Gokulbhai Babarbhai.
13
11
Natvarbhai Jethabhai Rathod.
18
12
Mukeshbhai Ganpatbhai Rathod.
22
13
Dr. Vijay Motiram Baviskar.
33
14
Satishbhai Maganbhai Rathod.
37
2.3 The prosecution has also produced and relied upon following documentary evidence:-
Sr. No.
Description
Exhibit
1
Panchnama of seizure of clothes of the deceased
7
2
Inquest panchnama of dead body of the deceased.
12
3
Panchnama of the place of offence drawn by IO.
14
4
Original complaint given by Natvarbhai Amarsang.
16
5
Panchnama of physical condition of the accused.
21
6
Panchnama of the place of offence shown by the accused.
23
7
Yadi written by IO to Mamlatdar for preparing map of the place of offence.
30
8
Panchnama regarding map carried out by Circle Inspector in presence of the panchas.
31
9
Map of the place of offence.
32
10
Postmortem note of the deceased.
34
11
Yadi written by IO to Medical Officer. Civil Hospital, Bharuch.
35
12
Certificate of physical condition of the accused given by medical officer.
36
13
Vardhi given by PSO to CPI.
38
14
Copy of the station diary of
