Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shaileshkumar Rasiklal Rathod on 24 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 887 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHAILESHKUMAR RASIKLAL RATHOD
==========================================================
Appearance:
Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
SHIVAM H CHOKSHI(9120) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 24/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 3 rd Fast Track Court, Gondal Camp at Upleta (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 92/2007 on 23.09.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.
Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined 1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 The accused was married to Kavita - the daughter of the complainant - Ugabhai Karabhai Sondharva, two years prior to the incident and during their matrimonial life, the accused had a doubt on the character of Kavita and would often consume liquor and physically and mentally harass Kavita. The harassment was to such an extent that she could not bear the harassment and on 30.03.2007, she consumed some poisonous substance and committed suicide. The offence was registered by Ugabhai Karabhai Sondharva - the father of the deceased on 03.04.2007, which was registered at Patanvav Police Station I - C.R. No. 10 of 2007 under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Upleta and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Gondal as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 887/2008.
2.3 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 1 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 2 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced 11 oral evidences and 30 documentary evidence to bring home the charge against the accused. After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on his behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against him. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Shiwam Chokshi the respondent. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Shivam Thakkar has submitted Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in proper perspective and no interference is required in the impugned judgement and order.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, this Court stated:
"While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court".
From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 - Ugabhai Karabhai at Exh.
11. The witness is the complainant who has stated that deceased Kaviben was his younger brother - Mukeshbhai Karabhai's daughter and she was residing with him since she was two and a half years old as her mother had expired and his brother was doing a job. That his widowed sister Maluben resided besides his house and deceased Kaviben and his widowed sister Maluben were residing with him. Kaviben was married to the accused and she had a daughter out of the marital life. That whenever she would come to his house, she would tell him about the Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined harassment by the accused and on the day of the incident, he was informed on telephone that Kaviben had consumed some poisonous substance and she was taken to the hospital at Junagadh. When he went to the hospital at Junagadh, she was lying on the bed but was not speaking anything and she expired and her final rites were done at Junagadh. That he had filed the complaint at Patanvav Police Station which is produced at Exh. 12. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that from the time that Kavita was married till she expired, she had come four to five times to his place and on all occasions she had come with the accused and they had lived happily for four to five days and had thereafter, returned to her matrimonial home. That he too had gone on three to four occasions to her house and they had gone happily and returned happily. That Kavita had come to his house for the delivery of her daughter and during that time, the accused had visited her. That she had never discussed anything about her matrimonial life with him and during her matrimonial life, she had never filed Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined any complaint against the accused. That he had not discussed any ill treatment to her with any of his community leaders and while she was in the hospital at Junagadh, the Junagadh Police had come at that place. The Junagadh police had inquired his brother Mukesh about the incident and after they returned to Batwa village, they had filed the complaint after the third day. The complaint was filed four days after Kavita had expired and after the complaint was written, it was not read over to him and he was asked to affix his signature. Kavita was very sensitive and she would feel bad in petty matters. 8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Ramaben Ugabhai at Exh. 13 and the witness is the wife of the complainant and aunt of the deceased who has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that her husband's brother - Mukeshbhai had remarried after his first wife i.e. the mother of Kavita had died and at that time Kavita was six months old. That he did not take Kavita to his house and she resided with them Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined till she was married. That her husband had got Kavita married and after marriage she would come to their house but had never complained about the accused consuming liquor. They had never discussed her marital life with any of the community leaders and Kavita was residing with her aunt. That she was very sensitive and would feel sad on petty matters and whenever she would come to their house, she would come happily and go happily.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Maluben Karabhai at Exh. 14 and the witness is the paternal aunt of deceased Kavita who has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that after marriage, Kavita had come to her house on four to five occasions and on every occasion she had come happily and lived three to four days and went happily to her matrimonial house. That she had never complained about any harassment to her and her in-laws had kept her very well.
Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined 8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Dr. Sureshbhai Dhirajlal Pandya at Exh. 15 and the witness is the Medical Officer who has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Kavita and the post-mortem note is produced at Exh. 16. The witness has stated that there were no injuries on the dead body of the deceased as per column no. 17 and the cause of death was kept pending till the report of the chemical analyzer was received. That after the report was received, it was found that imidaclopid pesticide was found in the viscera and the cause of death was due to consumption of the poison. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that a person would die even if the poison was consumed by mistake.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Hirabhai Mithabhai at Exh. 19 and the witness is the driver of the rickshaw in which was taken to the hospital after she had consumed the poison. The witness has merely stated these facts or not and there is no evidence in his deposition that the deceased was ill treated by the accused in any manner. Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined 8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Deviben Rasikbhai at Exh. 20 and the witness is the mother of accused and in her deposition, there is nothing that has come and record against the accused.
8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Jayantibhai Lakhmanbhai at Exh. 21 and the witness has stated that he was on duty at the Hospital Police Chowki at Junagadh on 30.03.2007 and he was informed by Dr. Gondalia that Kaviben has expired due to consumption of some poisonous substance. That he had prepared the inquest panchnama which is produced at Exh. 8 and had informed PSI, Patanvav Police Station by the letter which is produced at Exh. 22. He had written a letter to the on-duty Medical Officer, Junagadh for conducting the post-mortem which is produced at Exh. 23 and had also written a letter to the Executive Magistrate for the inquest which is produced at Exh. 24. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the relatives of the deceased were present at the hospital in Junagadh.
Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined 8.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Khimjibhai Shakrabhai Makwana at Exh. 28 and the witness was working as the Head Constable at the Police Chowki at the Government Hospital, Junagadh on 30.03.2007 and he has stated that he was informed about the admission of Kavitaben Shaileshbhai with consumption of some poisonous substance and he went to inquire and found that she was unconscious. He had recorded the statement of her husband - Shaileshbhai and had informed the Junagadh B Division Police Chowki about the same. A wireless message was sent by Junagadh B Division Police Chowki to Patanvav Police Station and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he did not inquire as to whether the patient had regained consciousness till she had expired. 8.8 The prosecution has examined PW9 - Bijalbhai Somabhai - ASI Patanvav Police Station at Exh. 32 and the witness has stated that the complaint recorded by the Dy.S.P Jetpur was sent to him for registration and the same was registered at Patanvav Police Station I - C.R. No. 10 of Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined 2007. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that nobody had come to file the complaint and in the complaint that was sent to him, there was no date or time written. That if a married woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage, the investigation has to be done by a Deputy Superintendent of Police and there was no order passed for an investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and a PSI is not authorized to investigate such matters and he has no personal knowledge about the complaint.
8.9 The prosecution has examined PW10 - Meghrajsinh Dadubhai Jadeja at Exh. 35 and the witness has stated that while he was working as a PSI, Jhanvajog Entry No. 6 of 2007 was registered which he had inquired into. That he had gone to the place of offence but he did not find anyone and on 31.03.2007 at around 12.15 hours, Accident Death No. 6 of 2007 was registered as Kavitaben - wife of Shaileshbhai had expired during treatment. That he had prepared the panchnama of the place of offence, which is Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined produced at Exh. 9 and a bottle of poison was found at the place of incident. He had recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and the investigation of the Accident Death No. 6 of 2007 was taken over by Dy.S.P. A.K. Surwala. The complaint was filed by the uncle of the deceased which was registered as Patanvav Police Station I
- C.R. No. 10 of 2007 under Section 498A and 306 of the IPC. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that during his investigation, it was found that the deceased did not have any harassment at her matrimonial home and the fact had come on record in the deposition of the father of the deceased. Even in the evidence of the mother of the deceased, there was no evidence that the deceased was harassed in any way at her matrimonial home. The deceased was under treatment and during this time, he had not contacted her and at the first instance, she was taken to the Government Hospital at Upleta but he had not collected the medical papers of the Government Hospital at Upleta.
Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined 8.10 The prosecution has examined PW11 - Kerman Kursedh Mysorewala at Exh. 46 and the witness was working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Jetpur on 03.04.2007 and he had recorded the complaint of the complainant. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant had come to the Patanvav Police Station but the complaint produced at Exh. 12 does not state the place or the time at which it was recorded. That he did not record the statements of any witnesses during the investigation of the case.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution it has emerged on record that Jhanvajog No. 6/2007 and thereafter, Accident Death No. 6/2007 was registered regarding the incident and after the incident immediately as Kavitaben - wife of Shaileshkumar Rasiklal Rathod had consumed some poisonous substance and she was taken to the Government Hospital at Upleta but the medical papers of Government Hospital, Upleta have not been brought on record. Thereafter, she was brought to the Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined Hospital at Junagadh but there are no documents regarding her admission at the Government Hospital at Junagadh. There is no iota of evidence that there was any ill-treatment by the accused and as per the case of the prosecution, the accused had a doubt on the character of the victim deceased but no evidence to this effect has been produced on record. The complainant who is the uncle of the deceased and PW2 - Ramaben Ugabhai who is the wife of the complainant and the aunt of the deceased has stated during the examination in chief that the deceased was harassed by the accused as he used to consume liquor but they have not breathed a word about the doubt of the accused on the character of deceased Kavitaben. There is no particular incident where the accused had harassed Kavitaben prior to the unfortunate incident and PW3 - Maluben Karabhai - the paternal aunt of deceased Kavitaben with whom deceased Kavitaben had resided from her very childhood has stated that there was no ill- treatment by her in-laws and the in-laws used to treat her very nicely at her matrimonial home. During the entire Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined evidence, it has also emerged that no complaint was ever filed about any ill-treatment by the accused or the in-laws of deceased Kavitaben and during the marital life, she had come four to five times the house of the complainant and PW3 -Maluben Karabhai but all the time she had come happily with her husband. There are no independent neighbours examined by the prosecution to prove whether there was any ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by the accused and in the present case, the investigation has been conducted by a Police Sub Inspector and not by a Deputy Superintendent of Police. There is no evidence as to where the complaint was drafted as the complaint was a written complaint and in the evidence, it has emerged that the incident had occurred on 30.03.2007 and the complaint was filed on 03.04.2007 and even though the family members of deceased Kavitaben were present at the hospital in Junagadh, they did not mention anything about any harassment to the accused. There is no explanation regarding the delay in filing the complaint and in the inquiry of Jhanvajog No. 6/2007 and Accident Death No. Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined 6/2007, there is no iota of evidence that the deceased was harassed by the accused in any manner.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra), the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 3 rd Fast Track Court, Gondal Camp at Upleta in Sessions Case No. 92/2007 on 23.09.2007, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:40 IST 2025