Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rameshbhai Jivabhai Vankar on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 304 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMESHBHAI JIVABHAI VANKAR & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DARSHAN P DAVE(5928) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH
ROY)
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 02.04.2011
passed in Sessions Case No.100 of 2010 on the file of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Panchmahals at
Godhra, whereby the respondents herein, who are accused nos.1 and 2 in
the said case, were acquitted of the charges levelled against them for the
offences punishable under Sections 307 and 114 of the Indian Penal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and under Section 25(1)AA of the Arms
Act.
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that about three
criminal cases were registered against the accused no.1 in various police
stations being C.R. No.I-76/2008 for the offence punishable under
Section 384 of the IPC, C.R. No.I-115/2009 for the offences punishable
under Sections 223, 224, 225(a)(b) and 114 of the IPC and C.R.No.I-
23/2008 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and
under Sections 3(1)(10) of the the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accused no.1 was
absconding in the third crime that was registered against him referred to
above. Therefore, he was a fugitive and the police have been searching
for him to apprehend him in the said case. While so, on 04.04.2010, the
Police Inspector, Godhra Town, 'B' Division Police Station received an
information that accused no.1 along with another person was passing
through the road between Dhokli and Vavdi village. Therefore, on his
instructions, police were deputed to apprehend him while he was passing
through the said road. So, the police, who were deputed, were divided
into groups and both the groups were hiding on the said road behind the
trees waiting for the arrival of accused no.1. While so, at about 7:00 a.m.,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
on 04.04.2010, accused nos.1 and 2 were found coming on a Pulsar
motorcycle on that road near Panam canal. Accused no.2 was riding the
vehicle and accused no1 was the pillion rider. Immediately, PW-7, who is
an Assistant Sub-Inspector, came out on to the road to intercept the
vehicle. After seeing him, accused no.2, who is the rider of the vehicle
directed accused no.1 to shoot him. Immediately, accused no.1, who is
the pillion rider has taken a country made pistol and fired a shot against
PW-7. PW-7 sat down to avoid the fire shot. Fortunately, he survived.
Immediately, the other police from both the sides came to apprehend
accused nos.1 and 2. When accused nos.1 and 2 tried to escape, accused
no.2, who is driving the vehicle, jumped from the vehicle and fell down
on the ground and accused no.1 also fell down at the pit. It is stated that
both of them have sustained injuries while falling on the ground.
Immediately, police rounded them up and apprehended them. At the time
of laying trap, the police have also taken PW-1 and PW-2, who are
independent mediators to the scene of offence. So, the police have
arrested both accused nos.1 and 2 in the presence of the mediators. They
have recovered the country made pistol from accused no.1 in the presence
of mediators. They have also recovered four cartridges and the fired
bullet at the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators. The Pulsar
bike that was used bearing registration no.GJ-17-AA-5169 was also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
recovered and seized at the scene of offence in the presence of the
mediators. Two mobile phones from both accused nos.1 and 2 were also
seized in the presence of the mediators.
3. On the report lodged by PW-3, who is the Police Sub-Inspector, to
that effect a case was registered against both the accused nos.1 and 2 for
attempting to commit murder of PW-7 for the offences punishable under
Sections 307 and 114 of the IPC and under Section 25(1)AA of the Arms
Act. The case was investigated. The country made pistol and the
cartridges and the bullet that were recovered were sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination by the expert. The expert
opined that the said cartridges and the bullet relate to the said pistol that
was seized and a report to that effect was issued. After completion of the
investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused for the
aforesaid offences.
4. In the trial court charges under Sections 307 and 114 of the IPC
and under Section 25(1) AA of the Arms Act were framed against the
accused. They were explained to them. The accused denied the said
charges and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
PW-8 witnesses and got marked exhibits 1 to 11 documents to
substantiate its case against the accused.
6. At the culmination of the trial, after considering evidence on record
and on appreciation of the same, the trial court found the accused not
guilty for any of the charges that are levelled against them and thereby,
acquitted them of all said charges by the impugned judgment.
7. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of
acquittal, the State has preferred the instant appeal questioning the
legality and validity of the said judgment of acquittal.
8. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard the learned
APP Ms.Krina Calla for the State and learned advocate Mr.Darshan P.
Dave for the respondents. We have perused the record and evidence.
9. The fact that accused no.1 was involved in three crimes and he is a
fugitive in the third crime as he was absconding from arrest in the said
case is not in controversy. According to the specific case of the
prosecution, the Police Inspector, Godhra Town, 'B' Division Police
Station received a confidential information on 04.04.2010 that accused
no.1 has been passing through the road between Dhokli and Vavdi village
on the morning of 04.04.2010 along with another person, therefore, he
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
has instructed the police by deputing a team of police officers to
apprehend accused no.1, who is the fugitive. So, it is stated that PW-3 to
PW-7 along with other police staff reached the scene of offence, which is
near Panam canal in between the said two villages and they were hidden
behind the trees on either side of the road by forming into two groups and
when they were waiting at about 7:00 a.m., that both accused nos.1 and 2
arrived at the scene of offence on a Pulsar bike bearing registration
no.GJ-17-AA-5169 and at that time, PW-7 immediately came out behind
the tree to intercept the said vehicle and on the direction given by accused
no.2, who is the rider of the vehicle, that accused no.1 fired the pistol at
PW-7 and immediately, he sat down and escaped. Therefore, it is stated
that the accused have attempted to commit murder of PW-7. This is the
substratum of the prosecution case.
10. It is stated that when the police reached the scene of offence and
waylaid the accused as per the information received by them, they have
taken PW-1 and PW-2, who are the independent mediators along with
them and it is the case of the prosecution that they have arrested both
accused nos.1 and 2 at the scene of offence in their presence and seized
the motorcycle, the country made pistol, the cartridges and the bullet used
and the two mobile phones from accused nos.1 and 2 in the presence of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
the said two mediators. But, it is to be noticed that both the said two
mediators examined as PW-1 and PW-2 did not support the said version
of the prosecution. They completely turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution and they have shown their volte-face to the prosecution. They
did not state that the accused were arrested in their presence on
04.04.2010 at 7:00 a.m. at the scene of offence and they also did not state
that any such attempt to commit murder of PW-7 was made by accused
nos.1 and 2 by firing a pistol against him and that the accused were
arrested in their presence and that the pistol, the two wheeler and the
mobile phones and the cartridges and the bullet were seized in their
presence. So, the independent witnesses, who are examined as PW-1 and
PW-2 as mediators did not at all support the case of the prosecution.
11. So, there remains the testimony of only the police witnesses, who
were examined as PW-3 to PW-7. The trial court did not place reliance on
the testimony of these witnesses on various grounds. It is stated that there
are inconsistent versions given in the evidence of PW-3 to PW-7 and that
their testimony is not reliable. We have gone through the evidence of
PW-3 to PW-7. As regards the number of cartridges that are seized and
recovered at the scene of offence, the evidence of these witnesses is not
consistent. PW-5 stated that four cartridges were recovered, whereas PW-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
6 stated that only three cartridges were recovered and PW-8, who is the
Investigation Officer stated that only one cartridge was recovered.
Therefore, if really the incident is true and the cartridges are seized and
recovered, all of them are expected to give a similar version relating to
the number of cartridges that are recovered and seized. But, the aforesaid
three police witnesses have given three different versions relating to
number of cartridges that are seized. Further, PW-5 stated that the said
cartridges were recovered from accused no.2, whereas PW-6 stated that
the said cartridges are recovered from accused no.1. Thus, there are
inconsistent versions emanating from the evidence of these police
witnesses relating to recovery of the said cartridges, which makes their
testimony not only doubtful but wholly unreliable. If the incident is true
and the said recovery of cartridges is also really true, all of them being
the police officers are expected to give similar version and not different
versions. So, it is difficult to place complete reliance on their testimony
on account of the said inconsistent versions given by them in their
evidence.
12. Apart from the same, when the country made pistol was recovered
on the same day of the offence on 04.04.2010, it was not immediately
sent to the FSL for examination. It was sent to FSL after 22 days i.e. on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
26.04.2010. It is not explained where the said pistol was kept during the
said 22 days period of time. Generally, as per the procedure, police are
expected to immediately report the seizure of the pistol to the concerned
court and lodge the said pistol in the court and then take steps to send the
same for examination by the expert to FSL. There is nothing to indicate
from the record that either it was kept in the custody of the court or in the
custody of the police or where it was kept. The trial court also found that
it is not explained as to where the said pistol was kept during the said
interregnum period from the date of its seizure on 04.04.2010 till it was
sent to the FSL on 26.04.2010. So, it makes the recovery and seizure of
the pistol doubtful in the said facts and circumstances of the case.
13. Even though the Pulsar vehicle was seized, the Investigation
Officer did not make any effort to ascertain who is the owner of the said
vehicle. It was simply seized and no effort was made to find out to whom
the said vehicle belongs. So, it is a lapse on the part of the Investigation
Officer. It is not known from the facts of the case whether it was a vehicle
belonging to either accused no.1 or accused no.2 or to somebody else. As
panch witnesses did not support its seizure, it makes again doubtful
whether it seizure is really true or not. Therefore, as the prosecution case
and the evidence adduced by the prosecution as discussed supra bristles
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
from several legal infirmities and the evidence that was adduced is not of
any sterling worth, the said evidence is not trustworthy and wholly
unreliable to arrive at any just conclusion that accused nos.1 and 2 have
committed the said offence as alleged by the prosecution.
14. The trial court after considering the said evidence on record and on
proper appreciation of the same, arrived at a right conclusion and
recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. The said
judgment of acquittal of the trial court does not suffer from any manifest
illegality warranting interference in this appeal. Therefore, the impugned
judgment of the trial court is perfectly sustainable under the law. It is
settled law that in an appeal against acquittal, the accused are entitled to
double presumptions of innocence when they are acquitted by the trial
court on proper appreciation of evidence on record. It further fortifies the
presumption of innocence and when the judgment of the trial court is not
found to be perverse on account of any erroneous appreciation of
evidence, the Appellate Court usually will not interfere with the findings
of acquittal recorded by the trial court. So, this appeal fails and it is liable
to be dismissed.
15. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of
acquittal of the trial court. The bail bonds against the respondents if any
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/304/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
stands discharged. Record and Proceedings and the paper book be sent
back to the concerned trial court.
Sd/-
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
Sd/-
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ABHISHEK
