Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vashrambhai Muljibhai Vankar on 3 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 209 of 2000
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VASHRAMBHAI MULJIBHAI VANKAR & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 03/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the
judgment and order dated 18.12.1999 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.18 of 1997
acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 504, 302 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge at Exhibit
5 is that on 26.09.1996, the complainant-Sureshbhai Mavjibhai
Parmar, who is the son of the deceased-Lakhiben was assaulted
alongwith other family members due to some dispute which
has occurred of placing cot near the house of the
complainant's uncle-Kanjibhai Karsanbhai. The quarrel for the
alleged assault by the respondent accused is very trivial and is
related to placing of a cot in the compound. It is alleged
that during the quarrel / scuffle, the accused had also
assaulted the deceased-Lakhiben, which ultimately turned to be
fatal due to which, she succumbed to the injuries and hence,
the respondents were arraigned for the offences under Sections
143, 147, 149, 504 and 302 of the IPC. The First Information
Report (FIR) at Exhibit 17 was registered on 07.10.1996. As
per the contents of the FIR, the alleged incident had taken
place on 26.09.1996 at about 21.00 hours at Village Moje
Moksi, District Vadodara. The FIR has been registered on
07.10.1996 at Bhadarva Police Station and thereafter, the
charge has been framed on 20.05.1999.
3. The post mortem of the deceased was undertaken on
08.10.1996 and as per the deposition of the PW-2 Dr. Santosh
Mahadevbhai Joshi at Exhibit 21, the deceased had died due
to blood clots in her spleen and also due to presence of some
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
particles in her liver. The post mortem note at Exhibit 22
reveals the cause of death as 'spleenic rupture with extensive
peritonitis' which also reveals that there was no sign of
external injuries on the body of the deceased. The post
mortem note also refers that the spleen of the deceased was
enlarged with 'sub copsnlar haematoma shown laceration tissue
on inner surface size 1cm x ½cm'. The Trial Court has
acquitted the respondent accused primarily on two grounds :-
(i) non-explanation for registration of the FIR after a period of
almost 11 days; and (ii) health condition of the deceased.
4. The Trial Court has also noticed that after the deceased
suffered injuries, she was taken to the hospital and against the
advise of the doctor, the family members did not immediately
take her to another hospital and thereafter, the body of the
deceased was also kept for two days at the house of the
complainant. Being aggrieved by the observations of the Trial
Court, the present Appeal has been filed by the State.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni has
submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Trial
Court is required to be interfered with since the Trial Court
has failed to examine the evidence of the important witnesses
in its correct perspective. He has referred to the deposition of
the complainant, who is the son of the deceased. Reference is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
also made to the deposition of PW3-Mavjibhai Hirabhai, the
husband of the deceased and another son PW4-Ratilal
Mavjibhai, who has been examined at Exhibit 25. While
referring to the deposition, it is submitted that the accused had
assaulted the complainant as well as his mother on 26.09.1996.
It is submitted that the deposition of the said witnesses, who
were present at the scene of the offence, has not been
appreciated by the Trial Court. While referring to the
deposition of the PW2-Dr. Santosh Mahadevbhai Joshi, it is
submitted that the same reveals that the deceased had
succumbed to the injuries which has occurred due to the
assault of the respondent accused. Thus, it is submitted that
the Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for the
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of
the IPC.
6. We have examined the findings of the Trial Court
threadbare alongwith the evidence which has been established
on record. The evidence reveals that the incident has
occurred on 26.09.1996 on a trivial issue of laying down the
cot in the compound. It is the case of the prosecution that a
quarrel had taken place and during the said quarrel, the
mother of the complainant tried to save her husband, but the
accused-Govindbhai Manilal Parmar and Kanubhai Manilal
Vankar, had assaulted her on her legs and her abdomen which
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
resulted into her demise. The respondents were charged for
the offences as mentioned above. It is also an established
fact that for the offences which occurred on 26.09.1996, the
FIR has been registered on 07.10.1996 almost after a period of
11 days. No explanation has come forward for registration of
the FIR after so much delay. We have also perused the
evidence of the complainant, who has been examined as PW1
at Exhibit 16. His deposition reveals that after the death of
his mother, her body was kept for two days at his house. It
is also revealed that she was taken to one dispensary and the
police were also present at the dispensary, however, no FIR
was registered by them. He has also admitted in his cross-
examination that her mother was taken to one dispensary at
Channi and while returning from the said dispensary, she
passed away. He has also referred that his mother has passed
away on Sunday. It is also admitted by him that initially she
was taken to the dispensary at Savli and thereafter, she was
admitted for one day and thereafter, her dead body was kept
for two days. However, no FIR was registered. In the cross
examination, it is further elicited that her mother was not
taken to the hospital on the day of the incident. If the
evidence of the complainant is read in juxtaposition with the
evidence of PW3-husband of the deceased at Exhibit 24, it
does not reconcile. It is deposed by PW3-Mavjibhai Hirabhai,
who is the husband of the deceased that the deceased was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
taken to the hospital at Bhandara and since the doctor was not
available, she was taken to Savli Dispensary and was admitted
for one day and thereafter, she was discharged from the
hospital and after she was discharged, she had complained
about pain and thereafter, his wife passed away. He has also
admitted that his wife used to remain ill and she time and
again, used to complain about pain in her stomach and
occasionally, she was taken to Bhardava for treatment. Thus,
it is established from the record that the deceased was already
suffering from some ailment and was also being treated as she
complained about pain in her stomach.
7. We may at this stage also refer to the deposition of PW-2
Dr. Santosh Mahadevbhai Joshi, who is examined at Exhibit 21
and had undertaken the post mortem of the deceased. He
has referred to the post mortem report and the cause of
injuries suffered by the deceased in his cross examination and
it is elicited that if any person who is having a disease of
spleen, the death may occur due to falling down. He has also
stated that the death of the deceased had occurred prior to 36-
48 hours. No explanation is tendered as to why the body of
the deceased was kept for two days in the house. The PM
report also does not reveal any external injuries on the body of
the deceased.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/209/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
8. Thus, on an overall appreciation of the evidence, we do
not find any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge. Hence, we are not inclined to disturb
the acquittal of the accused.
9. The present Appeal hence, is dismissed. Record and
proceedings shall be returned forthwith.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE / SB-V # 1
