Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vaghela Kiransinh Laxmansinh on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 272 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VAGHELA KIRANSINH LAXMANSINH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRINA CALLA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 23/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 06.10.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2011 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar whereby the respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are A-1 and A-2 in the said case, were acquitted of the charges under Sections 394, 397 and 114 of IPC. Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:14:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 01.08.2002 at about 1 pm when the complainant, who is examined as P.W.-7, was going along with P.W.-8 on a scooter, initially A-1 and A-2 intercepted the said vehicle on the way and at that time, there was a quarrel between A-1, A-2 and PW-7 relating to an accident that took place earlier. Thereafter, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 left the place and went to a market. At the market, P.W.-8 got down from the vehicle and went to nearby place and when P.W.-7 was in the market, A-1 and A-2 came in a Jeep to that place and attacked P.W.-7 with dhariya on his head and thereafter robbed Rs.12,500/- from the pocket of P.W.-7 at about 2:30 pm.
3. P.W-8, who is at nearby place immediately reached the scene of offence and he has taken P.W.-7 to the hospital. P.W.-7 informed the doctor that he was attacked by A-1. At 6:15 pm. Police was informed over phone regarding the incident. On the next day i.e., on 02.08.2002 at about 4.:15pm in the evening, P.W.-7 Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined lodged the report with the police. It was registered as a case for the offences punishable under Section 394, 397 and 114 of IPC. The case was investigated. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police for the aforesaid offences against A-1 and A-2.
4. In the trial Court, charges under Section 394, 397 and 114 of the IPC were framed against A-1 and A-2 and the same were explained to the accused. They denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of Trial, P.W.s- 1 to 16 witnesses were examined and 7 exhibits were marked to prove the case of the prosecution.
6. After completion of trial, after considering the evidence on record, learned Trial Judge found the accused not guilty for the offences and acquitted them of the said charges levelled against them by the impugned judgment.
Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:14:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined
7. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present appeal questioning the legality and validity of the said judgment of the acquittal.
8. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the State. Despite service of notice, the respondent did not appear before the Court. Even after adjourning the matter to afford them an opportunity of hearing, they are continuously not appearing before the Court. As this is an old appeal of the year 2013 and as it is listed in the board under the caption "for final hearing of critically old matters of 11 to 20 years", we are not inclined to further adjourn the hearing of the appeal and we have decided to dispose of the appeal based on the material available on record on merits.
9. We have perused the material available on record and the evidence on record from the Record and Proceedings.
10. All though prosecution got examined P.W.s - 1 to 16 Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined witnesses to substantiate the case of the prosecution, except P.W.-7, who is the injured, none of the other witnesses including the eye witnesses to the incident supported the case of the prosecution. They all turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. According to prosecution version, P.W.-8 is the person who accompanied the injured P.W.-7 on his scooter when A-1 and A-2 intercepted their vehicle and quarreled with them and also when A-1 and A-2 again came to the market place and attacked the P.W.-7 and robbed money from him. This P.W.-8 completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and did not at all support the case of the prosecution. He did not say that A-1 and A-2 quarreled with P.W.-7 and again attacked him at the market place with dhariya and robbed money from him. As the scene of offence is a market place and as the offence took place in a broad day light, as per the prosecution version at 2:30 pm, the shopkeepers at the scene of offence are the best persons to speak whether the accused attacked P.W.-7 Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined and caused injury to him and robbed money from him or not. P.W.s 9 and 10 are the shopkeepers at the scene of offence in the said market. They also did not support the case of the prosecution. They turned hostile and did not depose that any such incident took place at the market and that A-1 and A-2 came in a jeep and attacked P.W.-7 with dhariya and robbed money from him.
11. The money of Rs.12,500/- said to have been robbed from the shirt pocket of P.W.-7 is also not recovered in this case by the police.
12. So, there remains only the evidence of P.W.-7, who is the de facto complainant. Throughout his version, it is his specific case that the P.W.-8 was with him when A- 1 and A-2 attacked him in the market. As noticed supra, P.W.-8 did not support the said version of P.W.-
7. Therefore, as the evidence of P.W.-7 did not find corroboration from the independent source and from the evidence of P.W.-8, the trial Court did not place reliance on the evidence of P.W.-7 and did not believe Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined his testimony. Further, he stated before the doctor that A-1 and another two persons attacked him, but he did not name the said two persons. He did not say that money was robbed from him. Therefore, considering the said inconsistent versions in his testimony given in the Court and before the doctor at earlier point of time, the trial Court did not believe the evidence of P.W.-7. So, it has recorded the finding of acquittal in favour of the accused on the ground that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against them with legal, cogent and convincing evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. We do not find any legal infirmity in the said findings of the trial Court. We are in complete agreement with the said findings recorded by the trial Court. After considering the evidence on record and on reappraisal of the same, we also found that the evidence of P.W.-7 is not trustworthy and in view of the infirmities found in his evidence. As his evidence suffers from infirmities, his testimony requires corroboration and Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:14:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined his testimony did not find support or corroboration from any other reliable evidence of the witness and particularly from the evidence of P.W.-8, who was with him according to the version of P.W.-7.
14. Therefore, we are also of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt. So, the impugned judgment of acquittal is sustainable and it calls for no interference in this appeal. So, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
15. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of trial Court. Bail bonds, if any, shall be discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J) (D. M. VYAS, J) Anuj Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:14:55 IST 2025