Gujarat High Court
Rajendrabhai Jivkubhai Shekhva vs State Of Gujarat on 17 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 442 of 2015
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 443 of 2015
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 444 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
--- No
==========================================================
RAJENDRABHAI JIVKUBHAI SHEKHVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 17/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. These three appeals arise out of the same crime in Crime
Register No.I-643 of 2009 of Ellis Bridge Police Station. The
said crime was registered on the basis of the report lodged by
the appellant in all these three appeals. But three separate
charge-sheets were filed against the accused and a joint trial
took place. Ultimately, the case ended in acquittal. Therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
these three appeals are heard together and they are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The second respondent in Criminal Appeal No.442 of
2015 and Criminal Appeal No.443 of 2015 and the second and
third respondents in Criminal Appeal No.444 of 2015 were
prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 307
read with Section 114 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 25 (1) (B) (a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act in
Sessions Case Nos.209 of 2010, 310 of 2011 and 312 of 2011
respectively on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.6, Ahmedabad City. After completion of trial, they are
acquitted of all the said charges.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the
de-facto complainant, who is the appellant herein has
preferred these appeals questioning the impugned judgment of
acquittal in the said three cases.
4. Facts of the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass and
may be stated as follows:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
4.1 Accused no.1 and accused no.2 are in the field of
transport business. In the process of their business, they used
to participate in the tenders floated by the government for
allotment of contract works. It is stated that the de-facto
complainant is also in the filed of business and he is also
participating in the tender process. While so, it is stated that
the accused no.1 and accused no.2 and also the de-facto
complainant have submitted their tenders relating to a
government contract work and the said work was allotted to
the de-facto complainant. So, accused no.1 and accused no.2
bore grudge against the de-facto complainant and they got
business rivalry and as the contract was allotted to the de-
facto complainant. So, it is stated that accused no.1 and
accused no.2 conspired with accused no.3 and accused no.4 to
commit murder of the de-facto complainant and a deal was
struck between accused no.1 and accused no.2 on one hand
and accused no.3 and accused no.4 on the other hand for Rs.5
Lacs to commit murder of the de-facto complainant.
4.2 So, it is stated that on 15.10.2009 at about 11.45 p.m.
when the de-facto complainant was boarding his car at
Mahalaxmi Cross-roads, Paldi, that accused no.3 and accused
no.4 came on a motorcycle. Accused no.3 was riding
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
motorcycle and accused no.4 was the pillion rider and he fired
a gun-shot by using a country-made pistol at the de-facto
complainant. He sustained injury on the left side of the
abdomen and immediately accused no.3 and accused no.4 fled
away from that place, after firing the gun-shot.
4.3 PW-7, Gangaram Ramlahri Fasi, who is a plumber took
the de-facto complainant, who is the injured to Sterling
Hospital, where he was treated. The bullet was removed from
the abdomen and it is handed over to RMO and the same was
recovered subsequently by the police. On receipt of the
intimation, police visited the hospital and recorded the
statement of the de-facto complainant. It is stated in the report
that somebody has fired a gun-shot against him and ran away.
The said report was registered as a case under Section 307,
114 and 120-B of IPC. The police has sent the bullet that was
recovered to the ballistic expert. It was also sent to forensic
science laboratory. After completion of investigation, police
filed three separate charge-sheets against accused nos.1 to 4
for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 114 and 120-B
of IPC.
4.4 In the trial Court, charges under Section 307, 120-B and
114 of IPC were framed against them along with Section 25 (1)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
(B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. They denied the said charges
and claimed to be tried.
4.5 Joint trial of all the said three Sessions Cases took place.
At the culmination of the trial, the trial Court found the
accused not guilty for any of the charges levelled against them
in all the three sessions cases and they are acquitted of the
said charges.
5. When the appeals came up for hearing before this Court,
we have heard Mr.Viral Vyas, learned counsel appearing for
Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Bhargav
Pandya, learned APP for the respondent no.1-State in all the
three appeals, Mr.Maulin Pandya, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 in Criminal Appeal No.444 of 2015 and
Mr.N.D.Buch, learned counsel for respondent no.2 in Criminal
Appeal Nos.442 and Mr.Ishrar Mansuri, learned advocate
appearing for Mr.B.M.Mangukiya, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 in Criminal Appeal No.443 of 2015.
6. At the very outset, it is significant to note here that the
very injured person, who is the de-facto complainant, who
lodged the report against whom the alleged attempt of murder
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
took place by firing a gun-shot against him is not examined in
this case. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the
trial Court, inspite of issuing summons to him several times to
attend the Court for giving evidence in the trial Court and
inspite of taking coercive steps against him and inspite of
making many efforts to secure his presence for the purpose of
giving evidence, he did not turn up for giving evidence in any
of these three sessions cases in the trial Court in a joint trial
that took place in the trial Court. Therefore, we do not have the
evidence of the injured witness in this case to prove that any
conspiracy was hatched against him for the purpose of
committing his murder between accused no.1 and accused
no.2 on one hand and accused no.3 and accused no.4 on the
other hand by engaging accused no.3 and accused no.4 by
paying Rs.5 Lacs to them for the purpose of committing
murder of the de-facto complainant. So, non-examination of
the de-facto complainant, who is an injured witness in this case
itself is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
7. Further, the motive that was attributed to accused no.1
and accused no.2 to hatch up conspiracy with accused no.3
and accused no.4 to commit murder of the de-facto
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
complainant is that they got a business rivalry, as the
government contract was allotted to de-facto complainant in
the tenders that are submitted by both the de-facto
complainant and accused nos.1 and 2. It is significant to note
here that investigation officer, who is examined as PW-21
admitted in the cross-examination that the de-facto
complainant is a government servant. Therefore, when he is a
government servant, it is really unbelievable to say that he is
in the field of business and has participated in the tender
process by filing a tender and that a government contract was
allotted to him. No evidence is adduced by the prosecution to
show that the de-facto complainant has participated in any
such tender process and that any government work was
allotted to him so as to believe that accused no.1 and accused
no.2 bore grudge against him because of any such business
rivalry and because of allotment of contract work to de-facto
complainant and thereby hatched up a conspiracy to commit
murder of the de-facto complainant. Therefore, the very
motive that was attributed to accused no.1 and accused no.2
for the purpose of hatching up a conspiracy to commit murder
of the de-facto complainant is not proved and established in
this case. Therefore, this strikes at the very bottom of the case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
of the prosecution and it cuts the case of the prosecution at its
roots.
8. Even the fact that the de-facto complainant has
sustained fire injury is not proved as per the medical evidence
on record. Although injury certificate of the de-facto
complainant is produced, the doctor, who is examined as PW-
18, stated in his evidence that he did not sign the said
certificate. He also stated that he did not issue the said
medical certificate. Therefore, the very medical certificate
relating to the alleged injury said to have been sustained by
the de-facto complainant is now shrouded in high suspicion. It
throws any amount of doubt regarding genuineness of the said
medical certificate. When the medical certificate said to have
been issued by a particular doctor contains his signature and
when the said doctor deposed that he did not sign the said
medical certificate and did not issue it, no reliance can be
place on the said medical certificate. Therefore, when the very
fact that the de-facto complainant has sustained any such gun-
shot injury is not proved, it is again a serious infirmity in the
case of the prosecution. So, it cannot be held that any attempt
to commit murder was made on the de-facto complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
9. The offence took place in a public place in broad day
light, though the prosecution has cited two witnesses, who
were doing business at the scene of offence, they did not
support the prosecution case. They only stated that they have
seen a mob gathered and they did not know who are the
assailants.
10. Although test identification parade was conducted in this
case and it is stated that the de-facto complainant has
identified accused no.4 as the assailant, who fired the said
gun-shot against him, the said identification of accused no.4 as
culprit is not at all believable. It is significant to note that the
de-facto complainant himself has sated in his FIR that he has
not seen the persons, who fired the gun-shot at him and he
does not know them. Therefore, when he has not seen the
assailants, who fired the gun-shot and when he does not know
them, it is really beyond our comprehension as to how he
could identify accused no.4 as assailant in the said test
identification parade. In fact, it would be beyond the
comprehension of any reasonable and prudent man to believe
that a person, who has not seen the assailants and who do not
know them has identified accused no.4 as the assailant. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
also pertinent to note here that the alleged incident took place
on 15.10.2009 and the test identification parade took place
long after the said incident i.e. on 8.12.2010, almost after
more than one year period of time. So, when the de-facto
complainant has not seen the assailants and when he does not
know them, his identification of accused no.4 as assailant in
test identification parade that took place after more than one
year period of time is absolutely not believable.
11. The pistol that is used to fire the gun-shot against the de-
facto complainant, according to the prosecution, is a country-
made pistol. It was not recovered during the course of
investigation of present case. During the pendency of trial of
the present case, it appears that the accused was arrested in
connection with another crime being Crime Register No.3076
of 2010 and in that case, one pistol was recovered and that
pistol was produced in the Court during the course of trial as
one that was used in the present case. But there is no
evidence to connect the said pistol as the weapon that was
used in the present case. Therefore, the prosecution has also
failed to prove that the said pistol was used in the present case
for the purpose was attacking the de-facto complainant. So,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
production of the said pistol during trial of the present case,
which was seized in another crime is absolutely of no use in
the present case to establish the case of the prosecution.
12. Therefore, as the motive that was attributed to accused
no.1 and accused no.2 to enter into a conspiracy with accused
no.3 and accused no.4 to commit murder of the deceased is
not established and as there is no evidence to prove that
accused no.1 and accused no.2 conspired with accused no.3
and accused no.4 for the purpose of committing murder of the
de-facto complainant, as the de-facto complainant, who is
injured in the case was not examined in this case and as his
non-examination is fatal to the case of the prosecution and as
the injury certificate is not proved and it is shrouded in
suspicion and as the identification parade of accused no.4 as
assailant by the de-facto complainant is also not believable
and as the test identification parade is not corroborated by
examining the de-facto complainant, as a witness in the case,
the trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record
arrived at a right conclusion and recorded a finding of acquittal
in favour of the accused. We do not find any legal flaw or
infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. We are in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/442/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial
Court. The said findings of the trial Court do not suffer from
any patent illegality or manifest error of law. Upon considering
the said evidence on record and on reappraisal of the same,
we do not find any valid legal ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment of acquittal. Therefore, the judgment of
acquittal of the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law.
So, all these three appeals fail and they are liable to be
dismissed.
13. Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed confirming the
impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.3.2013 passed in
Sessions Case Nos.209 of 2010, 310 of 2011 and 312 of 2011
on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6,
Ahmedabad City. Bail bond, if any, of the respondent shall
stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the
concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
Sd/-
(D. M. VYAS, J)
R.S. MALEK
