Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, VIMAL K. VYAS, JJ.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Devjibhai Mandanbhai Sovathia & Ors. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 20 Of 1996 With R/Criminal Appeal No. 100 Of 1996 With R/Criminal Appeal No. 103 Of 1996
Decided On : 14-06-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. Ronak Raval, APP.
For the Respondents: Mr. Aamir Pathan Abated, Mr. Aditya Choksi.
The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal convictions require clear evidence of intent and common object, particularly in cases involving multiple accused.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Appeals - IPC Sections 302, 141, 148, 149 - The court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the accused due to lack of evidence establishing a common object of unlawful assembly and intent to kill, emphasizing the need for clear proof in criminal cases.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple FIRs stemming from incidents of harassment and violence between two groups, leading to the deaths of two individuals. The trial court acquitted all accused due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court agreed with the trial court's findings, noting material suppression of facts by witnesses and the absence of clear evidence linking the accused to the intent to kill, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the accused could be convicted under IPC sections for murder and rioting given the lack of clear evidence of a common object and intent to kill.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 149 of the IPC, it must be established that the unlawful assembly had a common object to commit the crime, which was not proven in this case.
Result: The appeals are dismissed, and the trial court's acquittal is confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
(A.S. Supehia, J.) :
1. The present appeals emanate from the judgment and order dated 20.10.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kachchh – Bhuj (for short, “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case Nos.23 of 1993 (Criminal Appeal No.103 of 1996), 24 of 1993 (Criminal Appeal No.100 of 1996) and 60 of 1993 (Criminal Appeal No.20 of 1996).
2. In Criminal Appeal No.20 of 1996 in Sessions Case No.60 of 1993, there were 13 accused and by the judgment dated 20.10.1995, the trial Court has acquitted them. In Criminal Appeal No.103 of 1996 in Sessions Case No.23 of 1993, there were 17 accused and in Criminal Appeal No.100 of 1996 filed by the State in Sessions Case No.24 of 1993, there were 02 accused. By the common judgment and order dated 20.10.1995 passed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.23 of 1993 (17 accused) and Sessions Case No.24 of 1993 (2 accused), the trial Court has acquitted all the accused by the judgment and order of the even date (20.10.1995) passed in Sessions Case No.60 of 1993, the Trial Court has acquitted 13 accused and the same is subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 1996. Thus, the trial Court has acquitted total 32 accused in all the sessions cases. The Trial Court has conducted a separate trial, as mentioned hereinabove, in Sessions Case No.60 of 1993 and Sessions Case Nos.23 and 24 of 1993.
3. The first FIR being CR-I No.80 of 1992 has been registered on 15.08.1992 by the complainant - Renukaben D/o Devjibhai Mandanbhai Sorathiya before Aadipur Police Station, Kachchh against two accused – Dayaram Ramji Chotara @ Babal and Mohan Ramji Chotara under the provisions of Sections 354 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”), wherein she has alleged that while she was going on the scooter on 11.08.1992, at that time, both the accused came on the motorcycle from behind and teased her by overtaking her. Thus, the FIR has been registered after a period of 03 days of the incident.
4. Thereafter, an FIR being CR-I No.82 of 1992 has been registered before the very same police station by the complainant Devjibhai Mandanbhai Sorathiya (father of Renukaben) on 21.08.1992 at 3:00 p.m. against 8 accused under the provisions of Sections 143, 147, 149 and 307 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, alleging that his daughter was again teased by the accused – (1) Visanji Valji Baldaniya, (2) Visanji Meghji Vaniya, (3) Kanji Valji Baldaniya, (4) Devji Valji Baldaniya, (5) Kantilal Valji Baldaniya, (6) Mavji Ramji Chotara, (7) Lalji Ramji Chotara and (8) Khimji Valji Baldaniya. It is alleged that when his daughter informed about teasing by the accused, he along with his wife and two daughters went to the temple, at that time, all the accused persons had assaulted them with axe, knives, sticks etc. and during this scuffle, one Lalji Jetha Vaghmasi and Narsi Puna Baldaniya had received injuries as they had intervened and sustained serious injuries while trying to save them. No offence under the provision of section 354 of IPC has been registered, though it is alleged by the complainant that his daughter was again harassed by the accused persons.
5. Thereafter, FIR being CR-I No.83 of 1992 has been registered before the very same police station by the complainant – Dayaram Ramji Sorathiya, on 21.08.1992 at about 3:00 p.m. against 18 persons – (1) Renuka Devji, (2) Devji Mandan, (3) Prabhulal Mandan, (4) Khimji Mulji, (5) Mohan Mulji, (6) Mavji Punja, (7) Naran Mepa, (8) Amrutlal Naran, (9) Jayantilal Naran, (10) Muktaben Devji and (11) the friend of Renukaben – Kothari Hetal, (12) Jitendra Meghji Vaghmasi, (13) Dilip Naran Baldaniya, (14) Harilal Narayan Baldaniya, (15) Devji Puna, (16) Kanji Mepa, (17) Mohan Abhu and (18) Narshi Puna under the provisions of Sections 323, 143, 147 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. It is alleged that near the temple, the complainant was attacked by the accused and other persons and at that time, the ac
