Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chandrasinh Laxmansinh Zaliya on 27 September, 2023
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/517/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.517 of 2002
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Sd/-
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHANDRASINH LAXMANSINH ZALIYA & 1 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 27/09/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. In the present appeal, presented under Section 378(1)(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, "the
Cr.P.C."), the State has assailed the judgment and order dated
21.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Panchmahals camp at Dahod in Sessions Case No.6 of 2000.
The respondents-accused were charged and tried by the Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/517/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2023
undefined
Court under Sections 302, 337 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC") and under Section 135 of the
Bombay Police Act, wherein, at the end of the trial vide
judgment and order dated 21.12.2001, the Sessions Judge has
acquitted the accused for the offences, for which, they were
charged since the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal, as
per the case of the prosecution and as per the charge at Exh.2
is that on 12.08.1999, at about 18:30 hours, the complainant
and his wife - Champaben were coming from village
Ghadchundadi to their village and when they reached near the
riverbed, the accused along with one unknown person came on
motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-17-B-6532.
3. Thereafter, accused No.1 - Chandrasinh Laxmansinh
Zaliya told the complainant - Govindbhai Motibhai that he is
contesting the election and asked the complainant, as to
whether, he would cast his vote for him or not. The
complainant - Govindbhai replied that he would vote according
to their conscience. On hearing this, accused No.1 -
Chandrasinh Laxmansinh Zaliya got irritated and took a stone
and by throwing it caused injuries on the head of the
complainant. At that time, his wife / deceased - Champaben
asked them as to why they are doing. On hearing this,
Bhimsing Virsing Bhedi took a stone and caused injuries on the
head of Champaben, which ultimately resulted into her death.
At that time, the unknown person told other two accused to kill
those persons. The accused thus aided and abetted each other
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/517/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2023
undefined
in committing the aforesaid offences. On these facts, the
complaint was filed with Limkheda Police Station by the
complainant - Govindbhai Motibhai. The police, after
investigation, charge-sheeted the accused in the Court. In the
trial, the respondents-accused were charged and tried by the
Sessions Judge under Sections 302, 337 and 114 of the IPC and
under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, wherein, at the
end of the trial by judgment and order dated 21.12.2001, the
Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused for the offences, for
which, they were charged since the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Calla, has
submitted that the Trial Court ought to have believed the
evidence of eye-witness and injured witness, complainant-
Govindbhai, who is the husband of deceased - Champaben.
The complainant has fully supported the prosecution case.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further
submitted that the Trial Court ought to have believed the
evidence of Dr.Nishaben Lakhani and Dr.Rekhaben Parmar,
who have supported the evidence of the complainant
Govindbhai. It is further submitted by her that the Trial Court
ought to have been appreciated that death of the deceased-
Champaben was due to the serious injuries on her head. The
said injury has caused hemorrhage due to fracture of skull.
Thus, the evidence of the doctor clearly establishes that the
injury was sufficient to cause death of the deceased.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/517/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2023
undefined
6. Learned APP has further submitted that even on the sole
evidence of witness Govindbhai, the accused can be convicted
and sentenced for the offences with which they were charged.
The two doctors have also supported the evidence of the
complainant.
7. Though served, the respondents have chosen not to
appear before this Court to defend their case in the appeal. We
have heard the learned APP as well as examined the evidence
on record.
8. We have examined the evidence as well as the
observations made by the Trial Court. As per the case of the
complainant and the prosecution and as narrated in the
complaint dated 13.08.1999 by the complainant that the
accused had pelted stone on him and his wife, which resulted
into death of his wife. It is specifically narrated that the
accused had given repeated blows on his head as well as his
wife's head since they have refused to cast their vote in the
ensuing district election. Thus, it is a specific case of the
complainant that he was also injured by the accused by hurling
a stone on him and the cause of incident related to casting of
vote in election.
9. On perusal of the complaint dated 13.08.1999 as well as
the evidence of the eye-witness - the complainant, who is
examined as PW-2 below Exh.13 reveals that there is a major
contradiction established in his evidence.
10. The entire case of the prosecution is premised on the
refusal of the complainant of casting the vote in ensuing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/517/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2023
undefined
election, however there is no evidence established with regard
to any election being conducted in the entire area neither for
the Sarpanch nor any district election. In fact, the complainant
has admitted in his cross-examination that there was no
election being conducted, at the relevant point of time. In his
deposition, he has also referred to witness - Babubhai, the
conductor (PW-4), whom he has referred the incident of assault
with him and his wife, however PW-4 has turned hostile and
has not supported the case of the complainant or the
prosecution.
11. Thus, the entire allegations, which are levelled by the
complainant roping the accused in the complaint is not
established and the motive of assault by the accused on the
deceased of refusing to cast vote, collapses. The deposition of
the complainant is also revealed that he has admitted that
there were various persons travelling on the road, while he was
sitting with his wife, however, he did not call anyone of such
persons due to fear and simultaneously, he has accepted that
the accused had ran away after assaulting him and his wife.
The conduct of the complainant does not inspire confidence. It
is also admitted by him that home of the Sarpanch was only
one kilometer away, however he stayed for hours at the spot
with his wife. He has further admitted that there were people
presented in the field and were doing their work and the bus-
stand was 100 meter away from the scene of the incident.
There were other people, who are grazing their animals,
however he did not inform to any of them with regard to the
incident. It is also elicited by him that after the incident has
occurred, he had ran 100 feet behind the motorcycle, however
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/517/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2023
undefined
such fact is also not narrated in his complaint. The complaint
further reveals that he was present with the dead body of his
wife for the entire night and in the morning, when PW-4
(Babubhai) i.e. the conductor was going and he had informed
him about the incident and assault by the accused on his wife
as well as on him, which resulted into her wife's death. Thus,
the version of the complainant in his complaint as well as
before the Court does not reconcile and the conduct of the
complainant itself is doubtful.
12. The certificate dated 16.08.1999 at Exh.24, which is issued
by the doctor (PW-6), who is examined at Exh.23 does not in
any manner reveal the names of the accused. Doctor (PW-6) in
his deposition has stated that the complainant has not
revealed any names, neither he has given history of the
injuries, which were sustained by him.
13. We are not inclined to disturb the acquittal after
appreciation of the evidence. Further, we do not find any
infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Trial Court recording the acquittal of the accused suffers from
any perversity and the same in any manner would compel us
to reverse it.
14. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Record and proceedings, if any, shall be returned to the
concerned Trial Court, forthwith.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/- .
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
MAHESH/S-03
