IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Harsha Devani and Biren Vaishnav, JJ.
Jagdishsinh - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (Against Conviction) No. 1426 of 2014
Decided On : 20-07-2016
(B) Test Identification Parade--- Conducting a test identification parade is of no significance if the witnesses were acquainted with the accused.
(C) The Evidence Act, Section 27--- To put it plainly, the connection between the object recovered, the accused and the offence with which the accused is charged must always be established by "evidence aliunde".
Result: Appeal Allowed
Biren Vaishnav, J.
1. This appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.10.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 79 of 2012. By the aforesaid judgment, the appellant-accused has been convicted of offences punishable under sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The appellant has been acquitted of the offence under section 66(1)(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is as under:
2.1. The complainant, Jentilal Premjibhai Tank, father of the deceased Rajesh Jentilal Tank, filed an FIR before the Panchkoshi Police Station at Jamnagar on 26/5/2012 inter-alia stating that he is a resident of Village Jamvanthali. The complainant further stated that he had three sons, the eldest one being Vinubhai who stays at Billimora, the second son Suresh, a teacher staying at Village Balugar. That he (the complainant) owns and possesses 40 bighas of agricultural land on the road to Rozia Village and he cultivates the land. Rajesh, the younger son stays with him. The agricultural land had seven kyarees/rows of "gadab" which was fodder for the cattle. Tools used for the purposes of agriculture were also kept on the land. It was further the case of the complainant, in the complaint that in order to prevent pigs and other animals from grazing, and as the agricultural tools were on the field, it was necessary to keep a watch on the field at night. That his son Rajesh and he would alternatively keep a watch on the fields at night. On 25/5/2012, Rajesh, after his dinner, at around 8:00 p.m. had left on his bicycle for the field for keeping a watch that night. The following day at 6:00 in the morning he, (the complainant) went to the field and found Rajesh sleeping on a cot. According to the narration in the complaint, when the complainant, after sometime, went to wake-up Rajesh, he found Rajesh lying on the cot with his face covered in blood, his right ear cut from the centre and had injuries sustained by a blow. The complainant, finding Rajesh to be dead, went to the village and informed his cousin, Hasmukhlal Khimji Tank and his son Suresh at Mota Balugar and all of them returned to the farm. Suresh informed the police at Jamnagar. A complaint was lodged at the Panchkoshi Police Station, Jamnagar of the death of Rajesh caused by an unidentified person, by inflicting injuries by a sharp-weapon on the right ear and head. The police registered the FIR as C.R. No. I-69 of 2012 and the investigation was handed over to Police Sub-Inspector Shri Solanki. The Investigating Officer took charge of the investigation and drew the inquest panchnama as well panchnama of the scene of offence, recovered muddamal articles, arrested the accused, carried out an identification parade, took statements of witnesses, sent muddamal for examination to the FSL and filed a chargesheet before the Judicial Magistrate.
2.2. As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate, vide his order dated 4/09/2012, in exercise of powers under section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") committed the case to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar.
2.3. The trial court framed the charge at Exh. 5 for offences under sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), section 66(1)(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act (for short "B.P. Act") and section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and sought a trial. Statement under section 313 of the Code was recorded. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined, in all, 22 witnesses and produced documentary evidences on record as follows:
| Sr. No. | Name of the witnesses | Exh.No. |
| 1. | Panch Bharatsinh Prabhatsinh Sarvaiya | Exh.9 |
| 2. | Panch Yogesh Bhupa | |
State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran and Another
Mer Vaja Meraman Vs. State of Gujarat
Patel Manabhai Mavjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Daya Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Munish Mubar Vs. State of Haryana
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P.
Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava
Ramareddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Another Vs. State of A.P.
Munish Mubar Vs. State of Haryana
Bodhraj alias Bodha and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.