Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vaghela Kiransinh Laxmansinh on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 272 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VAGHELA KIRANSINH LAXMANSINH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRINA CALLA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 23/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated
06.10.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2011 on
the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gandhinagar whereby the respondent nos. 1 and 2,
who are A-1 and A-2 in the said case, were acquitted of
the charges under Sections 394, 397 and 114 of IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on
01.08.2002 at about 1 pm when the complainant, who
is examined as P.W.-7, was going along with P.W.-8 on
a scooter, initially A-1 and A-2 intercepted the said
vehicle on the way and at that time, there was a
quarrel between A-1, A-2 and PW-7 relating to an
accident that took place earlier. Thereafter, P.W.-7 and
P.W.-8 left the place and went to a market. At the
market, P.W.-8 got down from the vehicle and went to
nearby place and when P.W.-7 was in the market, A-1
and A-2 came in a Jeep to that place and attacked
P.W.-7 with dhariya on his head and thereafter robbed
Rs.12,500/- from the pocket of P.W.-7 at about 2:30
pm.
3. P.W-8, who is at nearby place immediately reached the
scene of offence and he has taken P.W.-7 to the
hospital. P.W.-7 informed the doctor that he was
attacked by A-1. At 6:15 pm. Police was informed over
phone regarding the incident. On the next day i.e., on
02.08.2002 at about 4.:15pm in the evening, P.W.-7
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
lodged the report with the police. It was registered as a
case for the offences punishable under Section 394,
397 and 114 of IPC. The case was investigated. After
completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed
by the police for the aforesaid offences against A-1 and
A-2.
4. In the trial Court, charges under Section 394, 397 and
114 of the IPC were framed against A-1 and A-2 and
the same were explained to the accused. They denied
the said charges and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of Trial, P.W.s- 1 to 16 witnesses
were examined and 7 exhibits were marked to prove
the case of the prosecution.
6. After completion of trial, after considering the evidence
on record, learned Trial Judge found the accused not
guilty for the offences and acquitted them of the said
charges levelled against them by the impugned
judgment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
7. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present
appeal questioning the legality and validity of the said
judgment of the acquittal.
8. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard
learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the State. Despite
service of notice, the respondent did not appear before
the Court. Even after adjourning the matter to afford
them an opportunity of hearing, they are continuously
not appearing before the Court. As this is an old
appeal of the year 2013 and as it is listed in the board
under the caption "for final hearing of critically old
matters of 11 to 20 years", we are not inclined to
further adjourn the hearing of the appeal and we have
decided to dispose of the appeal based on the material
available on record on merits.
9. We have perused the material available on record and
the evidence on record from the Record and
Proceedings.
10. All though prosecution got examined P.W.s - 1 to 16
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
witnesses to substantiate the case of the prosecution,
except P.W.-7, who is the injured, none of the other
witnesses including the eye witnesses to the incident
supported the case of the prosecution. They all turned
hostile to the case of the prosecution. According to
prosecution version, P.W.-8 is the person who
accompanied the injured P.W.-7 on his scooter when
A-1 and A-2 intercepted their vehicle and quarreled
with them and also when A-1 and A-2 again came to
the market place and attacked the P.W.-7 and robbed
money from him. This P.W.-8 completely turned hostile
to the case of the prosecution and did not at all
support the case of the prosecution. He did not say
that A-1 and A-2 quarreled with P.W.-7 and again
attacked him at the market place with dhariya and
robbed money from him. As the scene of offence is a
market place and as the offence took place in a broad
day light, as per the prosecution version at 2:30 pm,
the shopkeepers at the scene of offence are the best
persons to speak whether the accused attacked P.W.-7
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
and caused injury to him and robbed money from him
or not. P.W.s 9 and 10 are the shopkeepers at the
scene of offence in the said market. They also did not
support the case of the prosecution. They turned
hostile and did not depose that any such incident took
place at the market and that A-1 and A-2 came in a
jeep and attacked P.W.-7 with dhariya and robbed
money from him.
11. The money of Rs.12,500/- said to have been robbed
from the shirt pocket of P.W.-7 is also not recovered in
this case by the police.
12. So, there remains only the evidence of P.W.-7, who is
the de facto complainant. Throughout his version, it is
his specific case that the P.W.-8 was with him when A-
1 and A-2 attacked him in the market. As noticed
supra, P.W.-8 did not support the said version of P.W.-
7. Therefore, as the evidence of P.W.-7 did not find
corroboration from the independent source and from
the evidence of P.W.-8, the trial Court did not place
reliance on the evidence of P.W.-7 and did not believe
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
his testimony. Further, he stated before the doctor that
A-1 and another two persons attacked him, but he did
not name the said two persons. He did not say that
money was robbed from him. Therefore, considering
the said inconsistent versions in his testimony given in
the Court and before the doctor at earlier point of time,
the trial Court did not believe the evidence of P.W.-7.
So, it has recorded the finding of acquittal in favour of
the accused on the ground that prosecution failed to
prove the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled
against them with legal, cogent and convincing
evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. We do not find any legal infirmity in the said findings
of the trial Court. We are in complete agreement with
the said findings recorded by the trial Court. After
considering the evidence on record and on reappraisal
of the same, we also found that the evidence of P.W.-7
is not trustworthy and in view of the infirmities found
in his evidence. As his evidence suffers from
infirmities, his testimony requires corroboration and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/272/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
his testimony did not find support or corroboration
from any other reliable evidence of the witness and
particularly from the evidence of P.W.-8, who was with
him according to the version of P.W.-7.
14. Therefore, we are also of the considered view that the
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for
the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable
doubt. So, the impugned judgment of acquittal is
sustainable and it calls for no interference in this
appeal. So, the appeal fails and is liable to be
dismissed.
15. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the
judgment of trial Court. Bail bonds, if any, shall be
discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to
the trial Court concerned forthwith.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
Anuj
