Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chauhan Ranjit @ Mitesh Ramaji on 15 September, 2021
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
R/CR.A/1050/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1050 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
=======================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
1 NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
3 NO
the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question
4 of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of NO
India or any order made thereunder ?
=======================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHAUHAN RANJIT @ MITESH RAMAJI
=======================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI, APP (2) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 15/09/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI)
1. The State has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the
judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha
at Himmatnagar dated 03.12.2020 in Sessions Case No. 56 of
R/CR.A/1050/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2021
2019. The trial was held against two accused for having
committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,
506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(herein after referred to as "the IPC").
2. Heard Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the appellant - State.
3. It is noted that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
taken this Court extensively through the judgment and order of
the learned Sessions Judge.
4.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that
though prosecution, in support of its case, had produced cogent
and material evidence and though the prosecution succeeded in
proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt,
the final conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Court that this was
the case of having committed offence under Section 304 (Part-II)
of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC, is erroneous and
the same needs to be interfered with by this Court. It is
submitted that this appeal be entertained.
5. Having heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State and having considered the material on record, this
Court finds as under:
5.1 The incident is of 2019.
5.2 The accused and the victim are cousins.
5.3 There was some dispute about dinner, which led to death of
R/CR.A/1050/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2021
the victim.
5.4 Two persons are named as accused. Accused No. 1 -
Chauhan Ranjit @ Mitesh Ramaji and accused No. 2 - Chauhan
Motiji Keshaji. These two persons were charged for having
committed the offences punishable under section 302 IPC etc.
5.5 It is the case of the prosecution that, the victim was lastly
seen with the accused persons and thereafter, was missing, and
eventually, found died. Thus, case is based on circumstantial
evidence.
5.6 The Sessions Court has, on the basis of the evidence
adduced before it, arrived at the judgment that, though it cannot
be disputed that homicidal death had taken place, it was not
murder. We find that, on the basis of the evidence on record and
considering the totality, the Sessions Court cannot be said to
have committed any error in that regard.
5.7 On reading of paragraphs 50 to 60 of the impugned
judgment of the Sessions Court, it appears that after detailed
discussion on each and every aspect of the matter, the Sessions
Judge has come to the conclusion that the purpose of law would
be served if the accused No. 1 (respondent herein) is held guilty
for the offence punishable under section 304 (Part-II) (and not
under Section 302 of IPC).
5.8 The judgment of the Sessions Court need not be interfered
with on this count.
6.1 At this juncture, a beneficial reference may be made to a
R/CR.A/1050/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2021
decision of the Apex Court in Lalit Kumar Sharma and Others v.
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Govt. of
W.B., AIR 1989 SC 2134, wherein, the Court has held that:
"It is now well settled that the power of an appellate Court
to review evidence in appeals against acquittal is an
extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions, but
that power is with a note of caution that the appellate Court
should be slow in interfering with the orders of acquittal
unless there are compelling reasons to do so. If a finding
reached by the trial Judge cannot be said to be an
unreasonable finding, then the appellate Court should not
disturb that finding even if it is possible to reach a different
conclusion on the basis of the material on record."
6.2 In totality, we find that, the impugned judgment and order
recorded by the Sessions Court, does not call for any interference
by this Court. This appeal, therefore, needs to be dismissed.
7.1 While dismissing this appeal, it is clarified that, the findings
and observations of this Court in this judgment are on the basis
of the submissions made before this Court in the appeal filed by
the State after seeking leave of this Court under section 378(1)
(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and in the event, any
appeal is filed by the victim, the same may be examined on its
own merits.
7.2 We further clarify that, the conviction appeal filed by any of
the accused may also be considered on its own merits and non-
interference by this Court in the judgment of the Sessions Court
in this appeal, at the hands of the State, is not to mean
confirmation of the judgment of the Sessions Court.
R/CR.A/1050/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2021
8. This appeal is dismissed with above observations and
clarifications.
[ Paresh Upadhyay, J. ]
[ A. C. Joshi, J. ]
hiren
