Sanjivkumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Guj) 1754

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ.
Sanjivkumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application (For Additional Evidence) No. 1 of 2022 In R/Criminal Appeal No. 1492 of 2019
Decided on : 24-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR SAURIN A SHAH
For the Respondent:MR MITESH AMIN, MR HK PATEL, MR JM PANCHAL, SR. ADVOCATE, with MR PY DIVYESHWAR

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 323, 302, 34, 114 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 391 – Criminal Appeal – Offence of murder – Special Leave Petition – Original appellant – Held, Court is of considered opinion that such an affidavit filed through applicant is nothing but a clear attempt to overreach process of law – No doubt, it is open give his report or opinion, pursuant to request made on behalf of applicant, but, it was totally uncalled for him to make comments on qualifications and experience of witnesses in this case as well as against learned Judge, who conducted trial in matter – However, considering fact that this is an application for adducing additional evidence in which applicant has produced aforesaid report or opinion in support of his case, Court do not propose to delve into said aspect any further – Court hope that shall be more careful in future, while addressing learned Judges or Courts – Application rejected.

JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP, Mr. H.K. Patel, waives service of rule for the Respondent-State and learned Advocate, Mr. P.Y. Divyeshwar, waives for the original complainant.

2. This is an application filed under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief, ‘the Code’), whereby, the applicant, i.e. the original appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1492 of 2019, has prayed that the applicant be permitted to adduce additional evidence by examining an expert, namely Dr. M. Narayana Reddy, Hyderabad, as a witness in his defence, which was not permitted, though, prayed for before the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (in brief, the ‘trial Court’), vide application Exhibit-994 in Sessions Case No. 148 of 2016, Dated: 11.06.2019.

3. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Saurin Shah, appearing for the applicant, learned PP, Mr. Mitesh Amin, appearing with learned APP, Mr. H.K. Patel, for the Respondent-State and learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. J.M. Panchal, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. P.Y. Divyeshwar, appearing for the original complainant.

4. Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1492 of 2019 before this Court, challenging the judgment and order dated 20.06.2019, passed by the concerned trial Court in Sessions Case No. 148 of 2016, whereby, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the present applicant-original appellant as under;

(1) For the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Sections 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in brief, ‘IPC’), to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year;

(2) For the offence punishable under Section 323, read with Sections 34 and 114 of the IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in case of default to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months;

(3) For the offence punishable under Section 506(1), read with Sections 34 and 114 of the IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of default to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months;

4.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, referred to Paragraph-2 of the present application and submitted that the applicant had submitted an application below Exhibit-830, under Section 311 of the Code, before the trial Court on 05.03.2019, i.e. during the pendency of the trial, indicating that certain crucial witnesses, viz. (1) Mr. P.P. Pandey, who had carried out the investigation in the FIR being I-C.R. No. 102 of 1990, registered with Jam-Jodhpur Police Station, (2) Mr. H.P. Singh, who also investigated the aforesaid FIR and (3) Mr. T.S. Bisht, who was the then DSP, Jamnagar, though, were shown as the witnesses by the prosecution, they were dropped by the prosecution, later on.

4.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, further, submitted that about 40 witnesses, some of whom are police personnel and whose examination is necessary for effective adjudication, are conveniently dropped by the prosecution before the trial Court and therefore, the said witnesses be examined as the Court witnesses. It was submitted that the aforesaid application came to be rejected by the trial Court on 12.03.2019, against which the present applicant filed Special Criminal Application No. 4115 of 2019 before this Court.

4.2.1 It was submitted that this Court partly allowed Special Criminal Application No. 4115 of 2019 vide order dated 16.04.2019 and directed that (1) Mr. P.P. Pandey, (2) Mr. H.P. Singh, and (3) Mr. T.S. Bisht, be examined as the Court witnesses and the other witnesses, as per Annexure-Z to the said application, be examined as defence witnesses.

4.3 Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, submitted that against the order passed by this Court dated 16.04.2019, the original complainant filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4993 of 2019 before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

4.3.1 The applican