IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 442 of 2015 With R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 443 of 2015 With R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 444 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Sd/-

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Sd/-

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No --- No ==========================================================

RAJENDRABHAI JIVKUBHAI SHEKHVA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Date : 17/07/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)

1. These three appeals arise out of the same crime in Crime Register No.I-643 of 2009 of Ellis Bridge Police Station. The said crime was registered on the basis of the report lodged by the appellant in all these three appeals. But three separate charge-sheets were filed against the accused and a joint trial took place. Ultimately, the case ended in acquittal. Therefore, these three appeals are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The second respondent in Criminal Appeal No.442 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No.443 of 2015 and the second and third respondents in Criminal Appeal No.444 of 2015 were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with Section 114 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 (1) (B) (a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act in Sessions Case Nos.209 of 2010, 310 of 2011 and 312 of 2011 respectively on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Ahmedabad City. After completion of trial, they are acquitted of all the said charges.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the de-facto complainant, who is the appellant herein has preferred these appeals questioning the impugned judgment of acquittal in the said three cases.

4. Facts of the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass and may be stated as follows:-

4.1 Accused no.1 and accused no.2 are in the field of transport business. In the process of their business, they used to participate in the tenders floated by the government for allotment of contract works. It is stated that the de-facto complainant is also in the filed of business and he is also participating in the tender process. While so, it is stated that the accused no.1 and accused no.2 and also the de-facto complainant have submitted their tenders relating to a government contract work and the said work was allotted to the de-facto complainant. So, accused no.1 and accused no.2 bore grudge against the de-facto complainant and they got business rivalry and as the contract was allotted to the de- facto complainant. So, it is stated that accused no.1 and accused no.2 conspired with accused no.3 and accused no.4 to commit murder of the de-facto complainant and a deal was struck between accused no.1 and accused no.2 on one hand and accused no.3 and accused no.4 on the other hand for Rs.5 Lacs to commit murder of the de-facto complainant.

4.2 So, it is stated that on 15.10.2009 at about 11.45 p.m. when the de-facto complainant was boarding his car at Mahalaxmi Cross-roads, Paldi, that accused no.3 and accused no.4 came on a motorcycle. Accused no.3 was riding motorcycle and accused no.4 was the pillion rider and he fired a gun-shot by using a country-made pistol at the de-facto complainant. He sustained injury on the left side of the abdomen and immediately accused no.3 and accused no.4 fled away from that place, after firing the gun-shot.

4.3 PW-7, Gangaram Ramlahri Fasi, who is a plumbe