Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rameshbhai Jivabhai Vankar on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 304 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMESHBHAI JIVABHAI VANKAR & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DARSHAN P DAVE(5928) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 02.04.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.100 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Panchmahals at Godhra, whereby the respondents herein, who are accused nos.1 and 2 in the said case, were acquitted of the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 114 of the Indian Penal Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and under Section 25(1)AA of the Arms Act.
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that about three criminal cases were registered against the accused no.1 in various police stations being C.R. No.I-76/2008 for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC, C.R. No.I-115/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 223, 224, 225(a)(b) and 114 of the IPC and C.R.No.I- 23/2008 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and under Sections 3(1)(10) of the the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accused no.1 was absconding in the third crime that was registered against him referred to above. Therefore, he was a fugitive and the police have been searching for him to apprehend him in the said case. While so, on 04.04.2010, the Police Inspector, Godhra Town, 'B' Division Police Station received an information that accused no.1 along with another person was passing through the road between Dhokli and Vavdi village. Therefore, on his instructions, police were deputed to apprehend him while he was passing through the said road. So, the police, who were deputed, were divided into groups and both the groups were hiding on the said road behind the trees waiting for the arrival of accused no.1. While so, at about 7:00 a.m., Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined on 04.04.2010, accused nos.1 and 2 were found coming on a Pulsar motorcycle on that road near Panam canal. Accused no.2 was riding the vehicle and accused no1 was the pillion rider. Immediately, PW-7, who is an Assistant Sub-Inspector, came out on to the road to intercept the vehicle. After seeing him, accused no.2, who is the rider of the vehicle directed accused no.1 to shoot him. Immediately, accused no.1, who is the pillion rider has taken a country made pistol and fired a shot against PW-7. PW-7 sat down to avoid the fire shot. Fortunately, he survived. Immediately, the other police from both the sides came to apprehend accused nos.1 and 2. When accused nos.1 and 2 tried to escape, accused no.2, who is driving the vehicle, jumped from the vehicle and fell down on the ground and accused no.1 also fell down at the pit. It is stated that both of them have sustained injuries while falling on the ground. Immediately, police rounded them up and apprehended them. At the time of laying trap, the police have also taken PW-1 and PW-2, who are independent mediators to the scene of offence. So, the police have arrested both accused nos.1 and 2 in the presence of the mediators. They have recovered the country made pistol from accused no.1 in the presence of mediators. They have also recovered four cartridges and the fired bullet at the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators. The Pulsar bike that was used bearing registration no.GJ-17-AA-5169 was also Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined recovered and seized at the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators. Two mobile phones from both accused nos.1 and 2 were also seized in the presence of the mediators.
3. On the report lodged by PW-3, who is the Police Sub-Inspector, to that effect a case was registered against both the accused nos.1 and 2 for attempting to commit murder of PW-7 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 114 of the IPC and under Section 25(1)AA of the Arms Act. The case was investigated. The country made pistol and the cartridges and the bullet that were recovered were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination by the expert. The expert opined that the said cartridges and the bullet relate to the said pistol that was seized and a report to that effect was issued. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. In the trial court charges under Sections 307 and 114 of the IPC and under Section 25(1) AA of the Arms Act were framed against the accused. They were explained to them. The accused denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined PW-8 witnesses and got marked exhibits 1 to 11 documents to substantiate its case against the accused.
6. At the culmination of the trial, after considering evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial court found the accused not guilty for any of the charges that are levelled against them and thereby, acquitted them of all said charges by the impugned judgment.
7. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the instant appeal questioning the legality and validity of the said judgment of acquittal.
8. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard the learned APP Ms.Krina Calla for the State and learned advocate Mr.Darshan P. Dave for the respondents. We have perused the record and evidence.
9. The fact that accused no.1 was involved in three crimes and he is a fugitive in the third crime as he was absconding from arrest in the said case is not in controversy. According to the specific case of the prosecution, the Police Inspector, Godhra Town, 'B' Division Police Station received a confidential information on 04.04.2010 that accused no.1 has been passing through the road between Dhokli and Vavdi village on the morning of 04.04.2010 along with another person, therefore, he Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined has instructed the police by deputing a team of police officers to apprehend accused no.1, who is the fugitive. So, it is stated that PW-3 to PW-7 along with other police staff reached the scene of offence, which is near Panam canal in between the said two villages and they were hidden behind the trees on either side of the road by forming into two groups and when they were waiting at about 7:00 a.m., that both accused nos.1 and 2 arrived at the scene of offence on a Pulsar bike bearing registration no.GJ-17-AA-5169 and at that time, PW-7 immediately came out behind the tree to intercept the said vehicle and on the direction given by accused no.2, who is the rider of the vehicle, that accused no.1 fired the pistol at PW-7 and immediately, he sat down and escaped. Therefore, it is stated that the accused have attempted to commit murder of PW-7. This is the substratum of the prosecution case.
10. It is stated that when the police reached the scene of offence and waylaid the accused as per the information received by them, they have taken PW-1 and PW-2, who are the independent mediators along with them and it is the case of the prosecution that they have arrested both accused nos.1 and 2 at the scene of offence in their presence and seized the motorcycle, the country made pistol, the cartridges and the bullet used and the two mobile phones from accused nos.1 and 2 in the presence of Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined the said two mediators. But, it is to be noticed that both the said two mediators examined as PW-1 and PW-2 did not support the said version of the prosecution. They completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and they have shown their volte-face to the prosecution. They did not state that the accused were arrested in their presence on 04.04.2010 at 7:00 a.m. at the scene of offence and they also did not state that any such attempt to commit murder of PW-7 was made by accused nos.1 and 2 by firing a pistol against him and that the accused were arrested in their presence and that the pistol, the two wheeler and the mobile phones and the cartridges and the bullet were seized in their presence. So, the independent witnesses, who are examined as PW-1 and PW-2 as mediators did not at all support the case of the prosecution.
11. So, there remains the testimony of only the police witnesses, who were examined as PW-3 to PW-7. The trial court did not place reliance on the testimony of these witnesses on various grounds. It is stated that there are inconsistent versions given in the evidence of PW-3 to PW-7 and that their testimony is not reliable. We have gone through the evidence of PW-3 to PW-7. As regards the number of cartridges that are seized and recovered at the scene of offence, the evidence of these witnesses is not consistent. PW-5 stated that four cartridges were recovered, whereas PW-
Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined
6 stated that only three cartridges were recovered and PW-8, who is the Investigation Officer stated that only one cartridge was recovered. Therefore, if really the incident is true and the cartridges are seized and recovered, all of them are expected to give a similar version relating to the number of cartridges that are recovered and seized. But, the aforesaid three police witnesses have given three different versions relating to number of cartridges that are seized. Further, PW-5 stated that the said cartridges were recovered from accused no.2, whereas PW-6 stated that the said cartridges are recovered from accused no.1. Thus, there are inconsistent versions emanating from the evidence of these police witnesses relating to recovery of the said cartridges, which makes their testimony not only doubtful but wholly unreliable. If the incident is true and the said recovery of cartridges is also really true, all of them being the police officers are expected to give similar version and not different versions. So, it is difficult to place complete reliance on their testimony on account of the said inconsistent versions given by them in their evidence.
12. Apart from the same, when the country made pistol was recovered on the same day of the offence on 04.04.2010, it was not immediately sent to the FSL for examination. It was sent to FSL after 22 days i.e. on Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 26.04.2010. It is not explained where the said pistol was kept during the said 22 days period of time. Generally, as per the procedure, police are expected to immediately report the seizure of the pistol to the concerned court and lodge the said pistol in the court and then take steps to send the same for examination by the expert to FSL. There is nothing to indicate from the record that either it was kept in the custody of the court or in the custody of the police or where it was kept. The trial court also found that it is not explained as to where the said pistol was kept during the said interregnum period from the date of its seizure on 04.04.2010 till it was sent to the FSL on 26.04.2010. So, it makes the recovery and seizure of the pistol doubtful in the said facts and circumstances of the case.
13. Even though the Pulsar vehicle was seized, the Investigation Officer did not make any effort to ascertain who is the owner of the said vehicle. It was simply seized and no effort was made to find out to whom the said vehicle belongs. So, it is a lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer. It is not known from the facts of the case whether it was a vehicle belonging to either accused no.1 or accused no.2 or to somebody else. As panch witnesses did not support its seizure, it makes again doubtful whether it seizure is really true or not. Therefore, as the prosecution case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution as discussed supra bristles Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined from several legal infirmities and the evidence that was adduced is not of any sterling worth, the said evidence is not trustworthy and wholly unreliable to arrive at any just conclusion that accused nos.1 and 2 have committed the said offence as alleged by the prosecution.
14. The trial court after considering the said evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same, arrived at a right conclusion and recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. The said judgment of acquittal of the trial court does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference in this appeal. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the trial court is perfectly sustainable under the law. It is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal, the accused are entitled to double presumptions of innocence when they are acquitted by the trial court on proper appreciation of evidence on record. It further fortifies the presumption of innocence and when the judgment of the trial court is not found to be perverse on account of any erroneous appreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court usually will not interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court. So, this appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.
15. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of acquittal of the trial court. The bail bonds against the respondents if any Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined stands discharged. Record and Proceedings and the paper book be sent back to the concerned trial court.
Sd/-
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J) Sd/-
(D. M. VYAS, J) ABHISHEK Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:25:44 IST 2025