Back
2023 Supreme(Guj) 761
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, M.R. MENGDEY, JJ.
Prafulbhai Virchandbhai Shah – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 821 of 2015, Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2016
Decided On : 11-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Kruti M. Shah, Virat G. Popat.
For the Respondent: Ronak B. Raval.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eye-witness testimony and forensic evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
MURDER - FINANCIAL DISPUTE - IPC 302, 120(B), 452, 188, 114, 25(1)(B) - The court acquitted accused No. 2 due to lack of evidence establishing his complicity in the murder. Accused No. 1 was convicted based on the eye-witness testimony and forensic evidence. The court confirmed the conviction of accused No. 1 and rejected his appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a financial dispute between the partners of a dissolved firm, leading to the murder of one partner's son. The accused No. 1 was convicted for the murder, while accused No. 2 was acquitted due to lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found accused No. 1 guilty based on the eye-witness testimony and forensic evidence. The court acquitted accused No. 2 due to lack of evidence establishing his complicity in the murder.
Issues: The main issue was the complicity of the accused in the murder, based on the financial dispute between the partners of the dissolved firm.
Ratio Decidendi: The court acquitted accused No. 2 due to lack of evidence establishing his complicity in the murder. Accused No. 1 was convicted based on the eye-witness testimony and forensic evidence.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction of accused No. 1 and rejected his appeal. Accused No. 2 was acquitted due to lack of evidence establishing his complicity in the murder.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. The present criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “the Cr.P.C.” for short) are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.05.2015 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Session Case No. 2 of 2010, wherein and whereby, the appellants i.e. the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “the IPC” for short) and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one year is imposed. In addition to the aforesaid sentence, the accused No. 1 is convicted for the offence under Section 452 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment of one month is imposed. The accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)-B of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of the payment of fine, simple imprisonment of one month is imposed. All the aforesaid sentences are ordered to be served concurrently.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
2. The case of the prosecution in short as per charge (Exh.7) and the complaint (Exh.77) registered by father of the deceased (the complainant - PW-13) is that the accused No. 2 - Prafulbhai Virchandbhai Shah and the complainant (PW-13) - Bipinchandra Maganlal Shah were the partners in a firm viz. Chetan Cars Private Limited, which was dealing in the business of four wheeler accessories. As per the case of the prosecution, the dispute arose between the partners and hence, the firm was dissolved on 01.09.2004 and it was mutually agreed at that time that the accused No. 2 shall pay to the complainant (PW-13), an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- against the delayed payment and hence, the appellant - accused No. 2 was to pay Rs.14,00,000/- to the complainant (PW-13), out of which, the appellant-accused No. 2 paid Rs.6,00,000/- in installments as agreed.
3. It is further alleged that the accused No. 2 since did not want to pay the remaining amount, despite the repeated demands, hence, he had engaged the accused No. 1 - Farukh Hussain Habibbhai Shaikh and entrusted him the task of killing the deceased - Gautambhai Shah, who was son of the complainant (PW-13) and accordingly, they hatched a conspiracy and the accused No. 1 - Farukh Hussain Habibbhai Shaikh killed the deceased by shooting him on 18.10.2009 at 10:00 a.m. while the deceased was in his shop viz., Chetan Motors, which was situated at Sagrampura, Kailashnagar, White House, Surat. It is further alleged that the accused No. 1, while firing on the deceased uttered the words, “why are you extorting (ughrani) money from my employer (sheth) Prafulbhai?”
4. Thereafter, the complainant (PW-13), father of the deceased i.e. Bipinchandra Managanlal Shah lodged a complaint at Athwalines Police Station on 18.10.2009 being C.R. No. I-190/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 120-B, 188 and 114 of the IPC and under Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act against the accused No. 1 and one another i.e. Praffulbhai Virchandbhai Shah. On conclusion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer filed charge-sheet before 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Surat and it was numbered as Criminal Case No. 28936 of 2009 and as the offence was triable by the Sessions Court, the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 2 of 2010.
5. The accused were charged as per Exh.7 for the offences, as mentioned hereinabove, their plea was recorded below Exh.8 and Exh.9. The Trial Court, after examining the oral evidences of 42 witnesses and also placing reliance on the documentary evidences, convicted the accused and sentenced t
