IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.J.Desai, Samir Dave, JJ.
Vishal Vishnubhai Nayak & others - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1748, 705, 725, 746, 770, 1217, 1549, 1747 of 2012
Decided On : 10-03-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 164, 374, 377 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 r/w 120-B, 324, 326, 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, 34 and 114 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 10 – Offence of Murder - Criminal conspiracy – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – Punishment for rioting - Appeals have been filed either under section 374 or 377 of Code of Criminal Procedure, arise from common judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court with Sessions Case, wherein eleven accused have been convicted whereas two accused have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them - Whether said evidence can be relied upon or not - Whether prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on said evidence – Held, court have also scrutinized depositions of injured eye- witnesses as well as other witnesses and exhaustively crossed by their advocates – Court do not find any major contradiction about role played by each of appellants - There is no inconsistency in versions of witnesses about manner and method in which deceased was attacked by these appellants and therefore, facts of present case are different than facts of case - Criminal Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
A.J. Desai, J.
1. This group of appeals have been filed either under section 374 or 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arise from common judgment and order dated 21/04/2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case Nos.78 of 2006 with Sessions Case No.216 of 2006, wherein eleven accused have been convicted whereas two accused have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Hence, all the appeals are taken up for hearing today though different advocates have filed appeals for different convicts. The sentence imposed to each of the appellants, is stated herein below:
The appellants of Criminal Appeal No.1748 of 2012 namely Vishal Vishnubhai Nayak - original accused No.2, Jashwantsinh @ Jasu Maheshsinh - original accused No.3, Sunil @ Mankodi Triloksing Thakur - original accused No.4, Jayanti @ Don Odhavji Patel, original accused No.5; appellant of Criminal Appeal No.705 of 2012 namely Dhragpalsinh Pruthvisinh Chauhan - original accused No.8; appellant of Criminal Appeal No.725 of 2012 namely Ishwarbhai Khanabhai Sonara - original accused No.9; appellant of Criminal Appeal No.746 of 2012 namely Bhikhabhai Prabhatbhai Rabari- original accused No.7; appellant of Criminal Appeal No.770 of 2012 namely Paresh Kiritbhai Bhavsar - original accused No.12; appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1549 of 2012 namely Govabhai Nagjibhai Rabari - original accused No.1 and appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1747 of 2012 namely Niranjansinh Ramnandsinh Rajput - original accused No.6, have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1, 000/- each and in default thereof payment of fine, simple imprisonment of six months, is awarded.
They are also convicted for the offence punishable under section 326 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1, 000/- each and in default thereof payment of fine, simple imprisonment of six months, is awarded.
They are also convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each and in default thereof payment of fine, simple imprisonment of three months, is awarded. As the aforesaid appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, no other punishment is awarded for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
The respondent of Criminal Appeal No.1216 of 2012 namely Maheshbhai Shankerbhai Ratheria - original accused No.10 as well as respondent of Criminal Appeal No.1217 of 2012 namely Maleshbhai Ramsingbhai Marchedkar- original accused No.13 have been acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 302, 326, 324, 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Short facts, emerging from the record, are as under:
2.1 That one Sachin Nagindas Modi, resident of city of Ahmedabad, who was an under-trial prisoner and kept in barrack No.6 of Sabarmati Central Jail, lodged an FIR (Exh.66) with Senior Police Inspector of Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad City on 07/08/2005 stating and alleging that prior to his presence in the custody, he was working in a mobile shop in Kalupur area of Ahmedabad city. On 20/06/2005, he along with his brother namely Hemant Nagindas Modi and other four persons came to be arrested in a crime, which took place on 15/06/2005, in which, one Naresh Marathi was done to death. He along with his brother Hemant were kept in barrack No.6 in Sabarmati Central Jail. In the said barrack No.6, he developed some relation with one Chetan @ Betari Shankarlal Patel, who was also a prisoner in a murder case. He also declared that in past also, said Chetan @ Betari had undergone some sentence for some other offe
State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600
State through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Mahender Singh Dahiya reported in (2011) 3 SCC 109
State of Dehli vs. Shri Ram Lohia reported in AIR 1960 SC 490
Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1979 SC 135
Padam Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 621
Mousam Singha Roy and others v.State of West Bengal reported in (2003) 12 SCC 377
Narender Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 7 SCC 171
Ashish Batham v. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 7 SCC 317
Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2009) 6 SCC 564
State (Government of NCT of Delhi) vs. Nitin Gunwant Shah reported in (2016) 1 SCC 472
State of Haryana vs. Gurdial Singh and another reported in (1974) 4 SCC 494
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. V.V. Panduranga Rao reported in (2009) 15 SCC 211
Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2019 SC 1525
Pandit Ram Prakash Sharma vs. Kharaiti Lal reported in AIR 1998 SC 2820
State of M.P. vs. Mansingh and others reported in (2003) 10 SCC 414
Jaswant Singh vs. State of Haryana and other allied matters reported in (2000) 4 SCC 484
Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 7 SCC 596
SupremeToday
The court upheld convictions for murder and conspiracy despite reliance on circumstantial evidence, finding sufficient connections through uncorroborated testimony and addressing potential political ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of clear evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases of criminal conspiracy.
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.