Gujarat High Court
Rajendrabhai Jivkubhai Shekhva vs State Of Gujarat on 17 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 442 of 2015
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 443 of 2015
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 444 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
--- No
==========================================================
RAJENDRABHAI JIVKUBHAI SHEKHVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 17/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. These three appeals arise out of the same crime in Crime Register No.I-643 of 2009 of Ellis Bridge Police Station. The said crime was registered on the basis of the report lodged by the appellant in all these three appeals. But three separate charge-sheets were filed against the accused and a joint trial took place. Ultimately, the case ended in acquittal. Therefore, Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:58:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined these three appeals are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The second respondent in Criminal Appeal No.442 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No.443 of 2015 and the second and third respondents in Criminal Appeal No.444 of 2015 were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with Section 114 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 (1) (B) (a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act in Sessions Case Nos.209 of 2010, 310 of 2011 and 312 of 2011 respectively on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Ahmedabad City. After completion of trial, they are acquitted of all the said charges.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the de-facto complainant, who is the appellant herein has preferred these appeals questioning the impugned judgment of acquittal in the said three cases.
4. Facts of the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass and may be stated as follows:-
Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:58:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined 4.1 Accused no.1 and accused no.2 are in the field of transport business. In the process of their business, they used to participate in the tenders floated by the government for allotment of contract works. It is stated that the de-facto complainant is also in the filed of business and he is also participating in the tender process. While so, it is stated that the accused no.1 and accused no.2 and also the de-facto complainant have submitted their tenders relating to a government contract work and the said work was allotted to the de-facto complainant. So, accused no.1 and accused no.2 bore grudge against the de-facto complainant and they got business rivalry and as the contract was allotted to the de-
facto complainant. So, it is stated that accused no.1 and accused no.2 conspired with accused no.3 and accused no.4 to commit murder of the de-facto complainant and a deal was struck between accused no.1 and accused no.2 on one hand and accused no.3 and accused no.4 on the other hand for Rs.5 Lacs to commit murder of the de-facto complainant. 4.2 So, it is stated that on 15.10.2009 at about 11.45 p.m. when the de-facto complainant was boarding his car at Mahalaxmi Cross-roads, Paldi, that accused no.3 and accused no.4 came on a motorcycle. Accused no.3 was riding Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:58:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined motorcycle and accused no.4 was the pillion rider and he fired a gun-shot by using a country-made pistol at the de-facto complainant. He sustained injury on the left side of the abdomen and immediately accused no.3 and accused no.4 fled away from that place, after firing the gun-shot. 4.3 PW-7, Gangaram Ramlahri Fasi, who is a plumber took the de-facto complainant, who is the injured to Sterling Hospital, where he was treated. The bullet was removed from the abdomen and it is handed over to RMO and the same was recovered subsequently by the police. On receipt of the intimation, police visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the de-facto complainant. It is stated in the report that somebody has fired a gun-shot against him and ran away. The said report was registered as a case under Section 307, 114 and 120-B of IPC. The police has sent the bullet that was recovered to the ballistic expert. It was also sent to forensic science laboratory. After completion of investigation, police filed three separate charge-sheets against accused nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 114 and 120-B of IPC.
4.4 In the trial Court, charges under Section 307, 120-B and 114 of IPC were framed against them along with Section 25 (1) Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:58:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined (B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. They denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
4.5 Joint trial of all the said three Sessions Cases took place. At the culmination of the trial, the trial Court found the accused not guilty for any of the charges levelled against them in all the three sessions cases and they are acquitted of the said charges.
5. When the appeals came up for hearing before this Court, we have heard Mr.Viral Vyas, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Bhargav Pandya, learned APP for the respondent no.1-State in all the three appeals, Mr.Maulin Pandya, learned counsel for respondent no.2 in Criminal Appeal No.444 of 2015 and Mr.N.D.Buch, learned counsel for respondent no.2 in Criminal Appeal Nos.442 and Mr.Ishrar Mansuri, learned advocate appearing for Mr.B.M.Mangukiya, learned counsel for respondent no.2 in Criminal Appeal No.443 of 2015.
6. At the very outset, it is significant to note here that the very injured person, who is the de-facto complainant, who lodged the report against whom the alleged attempt of murder Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:58:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined took place by firing a gun-shot against him is not examined in this case. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the trial Court, inspite of issuing summons to him several times to attend the Court for giving evidence in the trial Court and inspite of taking coercive steps against him and inspite of making many efforts to secure his presence for the purpose of giving evidence, he did not turn up for giving evidence in any of these three sessions cases in the trial Court in a joint trial that took place in the trial Court. Therefore, we do not have the evidence of the injured witness in this case to prove that any conspiracy was hatched against him for the purpose of committing his murder between accused no.1 and accused no.2 on one hand and accused no.3 and accused no.4 on the other hand by engaging accused no.3 and accused no.4 by paying Rs.5 Lacs to them for the purpose of committing murder of the de-facto complainant. So, non-examination of the de-facto complainant, who is an injured witness in this case itself is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
7. Further, the motive that was attributed to accused no.1 and accused no.2 to hatch up conspiracy with accused no.3 and accused no.4 to commit murder of the de-facto Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:58:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined complainant is that they got a business rivalry, as the government contract was allotted to de-facto complainant in the tenders that are submitted by both the de-facto complainant and accused nos.1 and 2. It is significant to note here that investigation officer, who is examined as PW-21 admitted in the cross-examination that the de-facto complainant is a government servant. Therefore, when he is a government servant, it is really unbelievable to say that he is in the field of business and has participated in the tender process by filing a tender and that a government contract was allotted to him. No evidence is adduced by the prosecution to show that the de-facto complainant has participated in any such tender process and that any government work was allotted to him so as to believe that accused no.1 and accused no.2 bore grudge against him because of any such business rivalry and because of allotment of contract work to de-facto complainant and thereby hatched up a conspiracy to commit murder of the de-facto complainant. Therefore, the very motive that was attributed to accused no.1 and accused no.2 for the purpose of hatching up a conspiracy to commit murder of the de-facto complainant is not proved and established in this case. Therefore, this strikes at the very bottom of the case Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:58:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined of the prosecution and it cuts the case of the prosecution at its roots.
8. Even the fact that the de-facto complainant has sustained fire injury is not proved as per the medical evidence on record. Although injury certificate of the de-facto complainant is produced, the doctor, who is examined as PW- 18, stated in his evidence that he did not sign the said certificate. He also stated that he did not issue the said medical certificate. Therefore, the very medical certificate relating to the alleged injury said to have been sustained by the de-facto complainant is now shrouded in high suspicion. It throws any amount of doubt regarding genuineness of the said medical certificate. When the medical certificate said to have been issued by a particular doctor contains his signature and when the said doctor deposed that he did not sign the said medical certificate and did not issue it, no reliance can be place on the said medical certificate. Therefore, when the very fact that the de-facto complainant has sustained any such gun- shot injury is not proved, it is again a serious infirmity in the case of the prosecution. So, it cannot be held that any attempt to commit murder was made on the de-facto complainant. Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:58:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined
9. The offence took place in a public place in broad day light, though the prosecution has cited two witnesses, who were doing business at the scene of offence, they did not support the prosecution case. They only stated that they have seen a mob gathered and they did not know who are the assailants.
10. Although test identification parade was conducted in this case and it is stated that the de-facto complainant has identified accused no.4 as the assailant, who fired the said gun-shot against him, the said identification of accused no.4 as culprit is not at all believable. It is significant to note that the de-facto complainant himself has sated in his FIR that he has not seen the persons, who fired the gun-shot at him and he does not know them. Therefore, when he has not seen the assailants, who fired the gun-shot and when he does not know them, it is really beyond our comprehension as to how he could identify accused no.4 as assailant in the said test identification parade. In fact, it would be beyond the comprehension of any reasonable and prudent man to believe that a person, who has not seen the assailants and who do not know them has identified accused no.4 as the assailant. It is Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:58:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined also pertinent to note here that the alleged incident took place on 15.10.2009 and the test identification parade took place long after the said incident i.e. on 8.12.2010, almost after more than one year period of time. So, when the de-facto complainant has not seen the assailants and when he does not know them, his identification of accused no.4 as assailant in test identification parade that took place after more than one year period of time is absolutely not believable.
11. The pistol that is used to fire the gun-shot against the de- facto complainant, according to the prosecution, is a country- made pistol. It was not recovered during the course of investigation of present case. During the pendency of trial of the present case, it appears that the accused was arrested in connection with another crime being Crime Register No.3076 of 2010 and in that case, one pistol was recovered and that pistol was produced in the Court during the course of trial as one that was used in the present case. But there is no evidence to connect the said pistol as the weapon that was used in the present case. Therefore, the prosecution has also failed to prove that the said pistol was used in the present case for the purpose was attacking the de-facto complainant. So, Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:58:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined production of the said pistol during trial of the present case, which was seized in another crime is absolutely of no use in the present case to establish the case of the prosecution.
12. Therefore, as the motive that was attributed to accused no.1 and accused no.2 to enter into a conspiracy with accused no.3 and accused no.4 to commit murder of the deceased is not established and as there is no evidence to prove that accused no.1 and accused no.2 conspired with accused no.3 and accused no.4 for the purpose of committing murder of the de-facto complainant, as the de-facto complainant, who is injured in the case was not examined in this case and as his non-examination is fatal to the case of the prosecution and as the injury certificate is not proved and it is shrouded in suspicion and as the identification parade of accused no.4 as assailant by the de-facto complainant is also not believable and as the test identification parade is not corroborated by examining the de-facto complainant, as a witness in the case, the trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record arrived at a right conclusion and recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. We are in Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:58:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court. The said findings of the trial Court do not suffer from any patent illegality or manifest error of law. Upon considering the said evidence on record and on reappraisal of the same, we do not find any valid legal ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal of the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law. So, all these three appeals fail and they are liable to be dismissed.
13. Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed confirming the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.3.2013 passed in Sessions Case Nos.209 of 2010, 310 of 2011 and 312 of 2011 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Ahmedabad City. Bail bond, if any, of the respondent shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J) Sd/-
(D. M. VYAS, J) R.S. MALEK Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:58:11 IST 2025