Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vashrambhai Muljibhai Vankar on 3 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 209 of 2000
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VASHRAMBHAI MULJIBHAI VANKAR & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 03/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.18 of 1997 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Jan 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 08 21:25:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025 undefined
2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge at Exhibit 5 is that on 26.09.1996, the complainant-Sureshbhai Mavjibhai Parmar, who is the son of the deceased-Lakhiben was assaulted alongwith other family members due to some dispute which has occurred of placing cot near the house of the complainant's uncle-Kanjibhai Karsanbhai. The quarrel for the alleged assault by the respondent accused is very trivial and is related to placing of a cot in the compound. It is alleged that during the quarrel / scuffle, the accused had also assaulted the deceased-Lakhiben, which ultimately turned to be fatal due to which, she succumbed to the injuries and hence, the respondents were arraigned for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 504 and 302 of the IPC. The First Information Report (FIR) at Exhibit 17 was registered on 07.10.1996. As per the contents of the FIR, the alleged incident had taken place on 26.09.1996 at about 21.00 hours at Village Moje Moksi, District Vadodara. The FIR has been registered on 07.10.1996 at Bhadarva Police Station and thereafter, the charge has been framed on 20.05.1999.
3. The post mortem of the deceased was undertaken on 08.10.1996 and as per the deposition of the PW-2 Dr. Santosh Mahadevbhai Joshi at Exhibit 21, the deceased had died due to blood clots in her spleen and also due to presence of some Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Jan 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 08 21:25:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025 undefined particles in her liver. The post mortem note at Exhibit 22 reveals the cause of death as 'spleenic rupture with extensive peritonitis' which also reveals that there was no sign of external injuries on the body of the deceased. The post mortem note also refers that the spleen of the deceased was enlarged with 'sub copsnlar haematoma shown laceration tissue on inner surface size 1cm x ½cm'. The Trial Court has acquitted the respondent accused primarily on two grounds :-
(i) non-explanation for registration of the FIR after a period of almost 11 days; and (ii) health condition of the deceased.
4. The Trial Court has also noticed that after the deceased suffered injuries, she was taken to the hospital and against the advise of the doctor, the family members did not immediately take her to another hospital and thereafter, the body of the deceased was also kept for two days at the house of the complainant. Being aggrieved by the observations of the Trial Court, the present Appeal has been filed by the State.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is required to be interfered with since the Trial Court has failed to examine the evidence of the important witnesses in its correct perspective. He has referred to the deposition of the complainant, who is the son of the deceased. Reference is Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Jan 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 08 21:25:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025 undefined also made to the deposition of PW3-Mavjibhai Hirabhai, the husband of the deceased and another son PW4-Ratilal Mavjibhai, who has been examined at Exhibit 25. While referring to the deposition, it is submitted that the accused had assaulted the complainant as well as his mother on 26.09.1996. It is submitted that the deposition of the said witnesses, who were present at the scene of the offence, has not been appreciated by the Trial Court. While referring to the deposition of the PW2-Dr. Santosh Mahadevbhai Joshi, it is submitted that the same reveals that the deceased had succumbed to the injuries which has occurred due to the assault of the respondent accused. Thus, it is submitted that the Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
6. We have examined the findings of the Trial Court threadbare alongwith the evidence which has been established on record. The evidence reveals that the incident has occurred on 26.09.1996 on a trivial issue of laying down the cot in the compound. It is the case of the prosecution that a quarrel had taken place and during the said quarrel, the mother of the complainant tried to save her husband, but the accused-Govindbhai Manilal Parmar and Kanubhai Manilal Vankar, had assaulted her on her legs and her abdomen which Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Jan 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 08 21:25:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025 undefined resulted into her demise. The respondents were charged for the offences as mentioned above. It is also an established fact that for the offences which occurred on 26.09.1996, the FIR has been registered on 07.10.1996 almost after a period of 11 days. No explanation has come forward for registration of the FIR after so much delay. We have also perused the evidence of the complainant, who has been examined as PW1 at Exhibit 16. His deposition reveals that after the death of his mother, her body was kept for two days at his house. It is also revealed that she was taken to one dispensary and the police were also present at the dispensary, however, no FIR was registered by them. He has also admitted in his cross- examination that her mother was taken to one dispensary at Channi and while returning from the said dispensary, she passed away. He has also referred that his mother has passed away on Sunday. It is also admitted by him that initially she was taken to the dispensary at Savli and thereafter, she was admitted for one day and thereafter, her dead body was kept for two days. However, no FIR was registered. In the cross examination, it is further elicited that her mother was not taken to the hospital on the day of the incident. If the evidence of the complainant is read in juxtaposition with the evidence of PW3-husband of the deceased at Exhibit 24, it does not reconcile. It is deposed by PW3-Mavjibhai Hirabhai, who is the husband of the deceased that the deceased was Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Jan 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 08 21:25:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025 undefined taken to the hospital at Bhandara and since the doctor was not available, she was taken to Savli Dispensary and was admitted for one day and thereafter, she was discharged from the hospital and after she was discharged, she had complained about pain and thereafter, his wife passed away. He has also admitted that his wife used to remain ill and she time and again, used to complain about pain in her stomach and occasionally, she was taken to Bhardava for treatment. Thus, it is established from the record that the deceased was already suffering from some ailment and was also being treated as she complained about pain in her stomach.
7. We may at this stage also refer to the deposition of PW-2 Dr. Santosh Mahadevbhai Joshi, who is examined at Exhibit 21 and had undertaken the post mortem of the deceased. He has referred to the post mortem report and the cause of injuries suffered by the deceased in his cross examination and it is elicited that if any person who is having a disease of spleen, the death may occur due to falling down. He has also stated that the death of the deceased had occurred prior to 36- 48 hours. No explanation is tendered as to why the body of the deceased was kept for two days in the house. The PM report also does not reveal any external injuries on the body of the deceased.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Jan 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 08 21:25:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025 undefined
8. Thus, on an overall appreciation of the evidence, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, we are not inclined to disturb the acquittal of the accused.
9. The present Appeal hence, is dismissed. Record and proceedings shall be returned forthwith.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J) CAROLINE / SB-V # 1 Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Wed Jan 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 08 21:25:31 IST 2025