Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Natwarsinh Rathansinh Jadav on 4 March, 2024
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/56/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 56 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS 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 ?
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NATWARSINH RATHANSINH JADAV & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHAILEE A KAPADIA FOR MR ARPIT A KAPADIA for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 04/03/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal filed under the provisions
of Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C.")
emanates from the judgement and order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/56/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2024
undefined
12.04.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Godhra, Panchmahals
in Sessions Case No.268 of 2001.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one
Kashiben Samant Sinh Yadav of Adadhara village
filed a complaint on 27.02.2001 alleging that on
earlier day of the complaint i.e. 26.02.2001,
there was a marriage in her faliya of and while
marriage procession was passing, a quarrel took
place, in which her husband Ratansinh Samant and
others were injured. On the day of the incident
i.e. 27.02.2001, her husband went to village
Dhalol. The complainant was sitting in the house
of her brother-in-law, Gamersinh Somsinh with
wife of elder brother-in-law Shantaben and
mother-in-law of brother-in-law Gamer, Baijiben
Malarsinh Rathod at this time at about 12:30
hours, Natwarsinh Ratansinh, Lalsinh Bharatsinh
Jadav came along with Natwarsinh, Laxmansinh
Udaysing Parmar of Ahmedabad came and thereafter,
Rennuba Jellyba Darbar also came near to their
house and started abusing. Natwarsinh held hand
of the complainant and pulled her blouse in
hassle and asked her "where Samantsinh has
gone?", who has beaten his father?" and all four
persons have started abusing. Thereafter, they
searched for Samantsinh and they could not find
him and asked the complainant where Samant has
gone. Thereafter, they went to the complainant's
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/56/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2024
undefined
place and and at the behes of Lalsinh Bharatsinh,
Natwarsinh took a plastic bottle and thereafter,
sprinkled petrol on her Bamboo house set ablaze,
and thereafter, all these four persons went on
motorcycle and ran away.
3. Learned APP Mr.Jayswal has submitted that the
learned Judge has erred in doubting the version
of the complainant as eye-witness, who in terms
have clearly narrated the role of each of the
accused and the manner in which the incident has
occurred. He has submitted that the complainant
has also stated truthfully about the involvement
of her husband as an accused in an incident,
which had occurred day earlier to the offence
committed by the accused. He has submitted that
the Trial court ought to have appreciated that
the complainant has clearly deposed that
Natwarsinh has pulled her blouse and Lalsinh
Bharatsinh told to burn the house and thereafter,
Natwarsinh has poured the petrol from the bottle
and ignited the matchstick and burnt the house.
It is submitted that this version of the
complainant is supported by P.W.2.Shantaben and
in the cross-examination also she stood to the
test. He has further submitted that the Trial
Court has erred in doubting the version of the
complainant and Shantaben Jaswantsinh only on the
ground that third eye-witness turned hostile and
did not support the prosecution case. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/56/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2024
undefined
submitted that Samantsinh was not the eye-witness
because he was not present at the scene of the
offence. It is submitted that in these set of
circumstances, the Trial court has erred in
acquitting the accused by giving benefit of doubt
without considering other documentary evidence
such as panchnama of the scene of the offence and
fact that the complaint has been recorded within
short time after the incident.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Kapadia
appearing for the respondents has submitted that
the trial Court, after appreciating the
evidences, has precisely acquitted the
respondents, for which they were charged. She has
submitted that in fact, it is the case of no
evidence as eye-witnesses also did not support
the case of the prosecution. Thus, she has urged
that the present appeal may not be entertained.
5. We have heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties at length. The evidence, which
is surfaced on record, is also perused.
6. The charge at Exh.2 was framed for the
offences punishable under section 436 read
section 114 of IPC. It is alleged that the
accused in connivance with each other had set the
house of the first informant on fire.
7. The case of the prosecution stems of on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/56/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2024
undefined
F.I.R. at Exh.20 dated 27.02.2001 registered by
Kashiben w/o. Samantsinh Somsinh Jadav (PW-1)
(Exh.19). A bare perusal of the F.I.R. suggests
that she has named the accused however, she has
stated that the incident had occurred in presence
of Shantaben and Baijiben, who are examined as
PW-2 and PW-3 respectively.
8. We have perused the evidence of the
complainant at juxtaposition with the evidences
of PW-2 and PW-3, which transpire that the
complainant (PW-1) was not present at the scene
of offence, when the actual offence has occurred.
In the cross-examination, the complainant has
specifically stated that when she felt that
Ratansinh, who is father of the accused No.1
would expire, she has registered the F.I.R. for
the offence of setting her house on fire. Her
evidence reveals that father of the accused No.1
had registered the F.I.R. against the husband of
PW-1. She has stated that since father of the
accused No.1 Ratansinh has registered the F.I.R.
against her husband and other family members, who
had assaulted Ratansinh, she had registered the
F.I.R. as she believed that due to the assault on
Ratansinh by her family members, he would expire.
She has deposed that at the time of incident, PW-
2 Shantaben and PW-3 Baijiben were present
however, the evidence does not remotely suggest
that they were present at the scene of offence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/56/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2024
undefined
and they have seen the accused. PW-2 has stated
that at the time of the incident, she was working
in the field, whereas PW-3 has stated that she
was not present and went for fetching the grass.
Thus, her evidence does not appear to be of
sterling quality.
9. The entire case of the prosecution hinges on
the evidence of three witnesses. Under the
circumstances, and in light of the analysis of
the evidence of three witnesses, which do not
transpire that the accused have committed the
offence hence, in our considered opinion of this
Court, the trial Court, after appreciating the
evidence, has precisely acquitted them from the
offence, for which they were charged.
10. The appeal fails. Record and proceedings to
be sent back.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J)
NVMEWADA/77
