Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 648
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.
Taufik Razakbhai Musani and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (Against Conviction) No. 570 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014
Decided On : 07-04-2016
For the Appellants :Vipul Sundesha and P.P. Majmudar, Advocates
For he Respondent: Hansa Punani, APP
The sufficiency of evidence, validity of the test identification parade, and the importance of the victim's testimony in establishing the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure - Criminal Appeal - Section 374 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 374; Indian Penal Code, Sections 392, 394, 397 - The judgment discusses the delay in filing the complaint, the fairness of the investigation, the identification of the accused persons, and the recovery of stolen goods. The court emphasizes the importance of the victim's testimony, the validity of the test identification parade, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's brother was injured and robbed while transporting goods. The accused were convicted based on the complaint, victim's testimony, and evidence of recovery of stolen goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the complaint and recording the victim's statement did not affect the fairness of the investigation. The victim's identification of the accused in the test identification parade was considered valid. The recovery of stolen goods and the lack of explanation from the accused led to their conviction.
Issues: Delay in filing complaint, fairness of investigation, validity of test identification parade, sufficiency of evidence, recovery of stolen goods, and credibility of victim's testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in filing the complaint and recording the victim's statement did not undermine the fairness of the investigation. The victim's identification in the test identification parade was considered valid. The recovery of stolen goods and the lack of explanation from the accused led to their conviction.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the accused and dismissed both appeals.
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 2014 is filed by the Appellants/Original Accused Nos. 1 and 5 in Sessions Case No. 147 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 is filed by the Appellant/Original Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 176 of 2010, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the common impugned judgment and order rendered in both the aforesaid Sessions Cases by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot dated 31.3.2014, recording the conviction and sentence and imposing fine as stated in detail in the common impugned judgment and order, on the grounds stated in the memo of Appeals.
The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows.
2. The Complainant Laxmanbhai in Sessions Case No. 147 of 2010 lodged a complaint dated 31.5.2010 before the PSI, Jasdan Police Station that on 26.5.2010 his brother had proceeded with Icher Truck loaded with the goods, from Kothari Agritech in order to deliver the same at Jetpur. However, on 27.5.2010 one maternal uncle conveyed by mobile phone that one person is found unconscious near nala in village Badghoi and he has been removed to Jasdan Hospital and therefore the contact number of the Reporter Vijaybhai was obtained and they had proceeded to Gokul Hospital, Rajkot. The brother of the complainant was injured with several injuries for which the complaint was registered being I-CR No. 53/2010 with Jasdan Police Station for the offence under Sections 392, 394and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. On the basis of the investigation made, the charge sheet came to be filed and it was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 147 of 2010. However, thereafter on the basis of the supplementary charge sheet against the Appellant/Original Accused No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014, Sessions Case No. 176 of 2010 was committed and after committal the Sessions Court proceeded with the trial.
4. After the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, further statement of the Appellants/Original Accused persons was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. After hearing the learned PP as well as learned Advocate for the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot recorded the conviction imposing the sentence and fine as stated in detail in the common judgment and order.
6. It is this common judgment and order which has been assailed in both the Appeals by the Appellants/Original Accused persons on the grounds stated in the memo of Appeals.
7. Heard learned Advocate Shri L.R. Pathan for the Appellant No. 2 (Original Accused No. 5) in Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 2014 and for the Appellant (Original Accused No. 1) in Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014, learned Advocate Shri Vipul Sundesha appearing with learned Advocate Shri P.P. Majmudar for Appellant No. 1 (Original Accused No. 1) in Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 2014 and learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani for the Respondent - State of Gujarat in both the Criminal Appeals.
8. Learned Advocate Shri L.R. Pathan referred to the charge and also the Complaint at Exh. 95. Learned Advocate Shri Pathan submitted that there is a delay in filing the complaint. He referred to the papers and submitted that the message is received on 27.5.2010 and the complaint came to be filed on 31.5.2010. Learned Advocate Shri Pathan submitted that the complainant brother could not have stated about the nature of offence or about the Accused persons as he could not have known. He submitted that there is no eyewitness and therefore it requires appreciation of material and evidence. Learned Advocate Shri Pathan referred to the Complaint at Exh. 95 and the testimony of the Complainant PW-8 at Exh. 94. He submitted that the Complainant has stated that on the basis of his conversation with the Reporter on mobile, he could ascertain regarding the description of the person that it was similarly to his brother and he proceeded. Learned Advocate Shri
