Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Dhavnik Dilipkumar Shah on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/282/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 282 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
DHAVNIK DILIPKUMAR SHAH & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.10.2012 rendered in Sessions Case No.142 of 2012 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, whereby the respondents herein, who are accused nos.1 to 4 in the said case, were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 365 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC")
2. Brief overview of the facts of the prosecution case, may be stated as follows:-
2.1 It is a case of kidnap for ransom. The boy, said to have been Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/282/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined kidnapped by the accused, is a minor aged about 5 years. Accused no.4 is the niece of PW-1, who is the father of the minor boy. It is stated that on 25.10.2011, accused no.4, who is the niece of PW-1 has allured the minor son of PW-1 stating that he will take him out and accordingly, has taken the minor boy at about 7:00 p.m. on that day from the lawful custody and guardianship of PW-1. Thereafter, they did not return to the house. So, PW-1 lodged a report with the police on the night of 25.10.2011 at about 10:30 p.m. Police registered the said report as an FIR for the aforesaid offences.
2.2 Sometime, thereafter PW-1 received a phone call stating that his son was kidnapped and the person, who called him over phone demanded Rs.1 crore towards ransom to give back the custody of the minor boy to PW-1. There were negotiations between PW-1 and the persons who called him over phone and ultimately, it was agreed that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to be paid to return the custody of the minor boy. 2.3 It is stated that they asked PW-1 to come near to Karnavati Club and pay the ransom. The said fact was informed by PW-1 to the Police.
So, police laid a trap. On the next day morning, at about 4:15 a.m., on 26.10.2011, PW-1 went near to Karnavati Club and he noticed accused nos.1, 2 and 4 present in the car at that place and accused no.2 collected Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/282/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined black bag from PW-1 containing currency notes of Rs.25,00,000/- towards ransom. But, PW-1 did not find his minor son with them at that time. It is stated that while accused no.2 was receiving the bag with cash from PW-1 that PW-6, who is the Investigating Officer caught him red handed while receiving the ransom in the presence of the mediators examined as PW-3 and PW-4. Accused nos.1 and 4 were also arrested at that time in the presence of the said mediators.
2.4 Thereafter, PW-7, who is the Police Officer in the investigation team, came to know that the boy was hidden in the office at Wall Street, part-2 Building bearing office nos.707 and 708. Accordingly, they reached the said office along with the mediator PW-5. It is the case of the prosecution that accused no.3 was available in the said office and the minor boy, who was kidnapped, was with him in the said office. So, accused no.3 was arrested in the presence of the mediator PW-5. Thereafter, accused nos.1 to 4 were shown as accused in this case as the culprits, who have committed the offence of kidnap of the minor boy, who is the son of PW-1. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 365 and 120B of the IPC.
2.5 The trial court framed charges under Sections 363, 364A, 365 and
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/282/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
120B of the IPC against accused nos.1 to 4. The accused denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
2.6 In the trial that has taken place in the trial court, prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 9 witnesses and got marked 10 exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.
2.7 At the culmination of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial court found the accused not guilty for any of the charges levelled against them and thereby, acquitted them of all the said charges.
2.8 Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the instant appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.
3. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard learned APP Mr.Bhargav Pandya for the State and Mr.D.M. Devnani, learned advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4 and have perused the material and the evidence on record.
4. The fact that accused no.4 is the niece of PW-1 is not in dispute. According to the prosecution version, accused no.4 has taken away the minor son of PW-1 from his house at 7:00 p.m. in the evening on his Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/282/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Activa two wheeler on the ground of taking him out for a ride. None have witnessed accused no.4 taking the son of PW-1 from the house of PW-1 as per the prosecution version. After the son of PW-1 was not found in the house, PW-1 lodged a report with the police on the night of 25.10.2022 at about 10:30 p.m. The said report was registered as an FIR in this case. No names of the persons, said to have kidnapped the boy, were mentioned in the FIR nor the names of any suspects are also furnished in the FIR. So, in the FIR, it is not stated that either accused no.4 or accused nos.1 to 3 have kidnapped the minor boy.
5. As per the prosecution version, PW-1 received a phone call on that night stating that his minor son was kidnapped and demanding ransom of Rs.1 Crore to return the custody of the child. It is stated that after negotiations, the deal was struck for Rs.25,00,000/- and that he was asked to come near to Karnavati Club with the said sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to take back the minor boy. However, it is significant to note that although the cell phones of the accused herein were seized during the course of investigation, the mediators in whose presence the said cell phones were seized, did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, seizure of cell phones from the accused is not proved in this case. Further, even if the said cell phones are seized from the accused, there is nothing on record in Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/282/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined the form of any evidence to connect or link the user of the cell phones in the present offence as the call details report of the said cell phones are not collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and no certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act was also obtained. So, it is not proved in this case that any of the accused called PW-1 through their cell phones informing him that his minor son was kidnapped and that they demanded him the ransom of Rs.1 Crore and ultimately, agreed to receive Rs.25,00,000/- towards the ransom. So, the vital link is miserably missing in this case as the prosecution failed to prove that accused made any phone call to PW-1 demanding ransom from him.
6. Further, as per the prosecution version, the accused demanded PW- 1 to come with Rs.25,00,000/- near to Karnavati Club and when PW-1 went to Karnavati Club with cash of Rs.25,00,000/- in a black bag along with the police, that they found accused nos.1, 2 and 4 waiting in a car and that accused no.2 collected the said black bag with cash of Rs.25,00,000/- from PW-1 and at that time, he was caught red handed by the police along with the black bag in the presence of mediators PW-3 and PW-4 and he was arrested in their presence and at the same time, accused nos.1 and 4, who were at that place, were also arrested in the Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/282/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined presence of PW-3 and PW-4. But, the fact that accused no.2 was caught red handed when he was receiving the bag with Rs.25,00,000/- from PW- 1 and that he was arrested at that time and accused nos.1 and 4, who were present at that place, were also arrested at that time, is not proved in this case, as the alleged mediators PW-3 and PW-4, in whose presence they were caught and arrested, did not support the case of the prosecution. They turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, if the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 is eliminated from consideration as they did not support the case of the prosecution, except the evidence of PW-1, who is the complainant and PW-7, who is the Investigating Officer, there is no other evidence to prove the said fact.
7. Now, while considering evidence of PW-1 and subjecting his evidence to judicial scrutiny, several inconsistent versions and infirmities are emanating from his testimony, which makes his testimony and the testimony of PW-7-the Investigating Officer wholly unreliable. The denomination of the currency notes said to have been given by PW-1 of Rs.25,00,000/- to PW-1 did not match with the denomination of the currency notes spoken to by PW-1. This is what was noticed by the trial court in its judgment. The currency notes numbers of the seized currency, are also not noted. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-7 also Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/282/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined cannot be relied upon to arrive at any definite conclusion that PW-1 handed over the black bag with the currency notes of Rs.25,00,000/- to accused no.2 and that at that time, he was caught red handed.
8. Accused nos.1 to 3 are strangers to PW-1 and as accused no.2 to whom it is alleged that the black bag with currency notes was handed over is an unknown person and a stranger to PW-1. The trial court held that the police did not conduct any Test Identification parade. The trial court also found this is an infirmity in the case of the prosecution. But, in our considered view when it is the case of the prosecution that accused nos.1, 2 and 4 were caught while receiving ransom in the presence of mediators, no Test Identification is required. As the mediators did not support the case of the prosecution, the said fact is not proved in this case. Though PW-1 has identified accused no.2 again in the court while giving the evidence for the first time, the said identification cannot be believed. The alleged incident took place on 26.10.2011 and the said identification in the court took place on 26.06.2012 almost eight months after the incident. PW-1 has seen accused no.2 again only on 26.06.2012. So, identifying a stranger and unknown person after seeing only once after a period of eight months cannot be believed.
9. Accused no.3 was not along with accused nos.1, 2 and 4 at Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/282/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Karnavati Club. According to prosecution, accused no.3 was in the office at Wall Street, Part-2, Building bearing office nos.707 and 708 and he was with the minor boy and that they arrested him in the presence of the mediator, who is examined as PW-5. But, this fact is also not proved as PW-5 did not support the prosecution case and did not state that he was arrested in his presence at that office. He turned hostile to the prosecution case. Further, prosecution did not collect the ownership details of the said office to prove as to whom the said office belongs and in whose name it is and how accused no.3 was present in the said office along with the minor boy. These material facts are not properly explained.
10. It is also relevant to note that the black bag, in which it is stated that the currency notes of Rs.25,00,000/- was handed over by PW-1 to accused no.2 was not seized in this case. No explanation is forthcoming for its non-seizure.
11. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that accused no.4 in collusion with accused nos.2 to 4 kidnapped the minor son of PW- 1 and demanded ransom and collected Rs.25,00,000/- from PW-1 as per the case projected by the prosecution against the accused. The said allegations ascribed by the prosecution against the accused are not proved with any acceptable legal evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. The Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/282/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined finding of acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and we do not find any manifest error of law in the said finding warranting interference of this Court in this appeal. After considering the evidence on record and on reappraisal of the same, we are also of the considered view that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for any of the charges levelled against them beyond any reasonable doubt with acceptable legal evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is perfectly sustainable under law and it is not liable to be set aside. So, the appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.
12. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned judgment of acquittal of the trial court. The bail bonds of the respondents, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings and also the paper book be sent back to the concerned trial court.
Sd/-
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J) Sd/-
(D. M. VYAS, J) ABHISHEK Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:12:00 IST 2025