Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ramjit Alias Kalu Ramjas on 6 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/974/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 974 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMJIT ALIAS KALU RAMJAS
==========================================================
Appearance:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DR. HARDIK K RAVAL(6366) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 06/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The present appeal is preferred by the State under the
provisions of Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City passed
in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1996 on 30.03.1999.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/974/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
2. Facts in the nutshell are as follows:
2.1 That the complaint of incident dated 09.12.1995 at 13:00
hours was given before the Police Sub-Inspector, Amraiwadi
Police Station at 18:30 hours. The FIR was registered to the
effect that on 09.12.1995 at about 1 o'clock in the noon, at
Ahmedabad in Amraiwadi area opposite to the post office,
accused Ramji @ Kallu Ramjas, with the intention to destroy
the shed of the complainant, namely Pitambar Ramlal Maurya,
sprinkled either petrol or kerosene and set the shed on fire,
and also threw a piece of burning jute cloth on the
complainant.
2.2 On these allegations, the said FIR came to be registered as
CR No. 596 of 1995. The Police Sub-Inspector registered the
said complaint and the investigation was handed over to Circle
Police Inspector, namely Keshavbharti Prasarbharti Swamy. The
Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses,
namely Bhimnath Pitambar, and Indiben.
2.3 On next date, i.e., 10.12.1995, panchama of the place of
incident was drawn and samples were collected and
statements of witnesses were recorded. The FSL officer was
also called. The accused was arrested. His clothes were
collected and chargesheet was filed before Court No. 7 of the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and since the case was triable
by Sessions Court, the same came to be committed before the
Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, and charges came to be framed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/974/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
against the accused at Exhibit 2.
2.4 Having denied the said charges, the Sessions Court was
conducted the trial and after examining the witnesses and
producing documentary evidence and recording further
statement of the accused under the provision of Section 313 of
the CrPC, the accused was acquitted vide judgment and order
dated 30.03.1999.
Hence, the present appeal.
3. Heard Learned APP Ms. Chetna M. Shah for the
Respondent - State. She has mainly contended that the learned
Judge has not properly considered the deposition of
Complainant who had examined at Exh. 6 and supported the
case of the prosecution. The trial court ought to have
considered the deposition of panch witness namely
Chandhubhai Nagjibhai who was examined at Exh 8 and had
also supported the case of the prosecution. The trial court has
not properly considered deposition of the brother of the
complainant namely Bhimnathbhai Pitamberbhai who was
examined at Exh. 10. That the Trial Judge has committed
serious error in holding that no independent witnesses have
been examined though the same were available. That the
learned Trial Judge has not properly appreciated the fact of the
prosecution that the accused and complainant both were
having love affair with the lady namely Mamtaben and
therefore, the act of the accused was with a clear intention to
take revenge and the motive is also also apparent from the face
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/974/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
of the record. Lastly, it is argued that the reasons recorded by
the learned Trial Judge while acquitting the accused are
improper perverse and are not in conformity with the
documentary as well as oral evidences on record. Hence, the
learned APP argued to allow the present Criminal Appeal.
3. It appears from the record, that to bring on the charges,
the prosecution examined the Complainant Arjun Pitamber
Morya vide Exh. 6, Chandhubhai Nagjibhai vide Exh. 8,
Bhimnathbhai Pitamberbhai Morya vide Exh. 10, Mamtaben
Vasantbhai vide Exh.11 and Investigation Officer Keshavbharati
Prasarbharati Swamy vide Exh. 12 and relied upon the
documentary evidences namely, the FIR at Exh. 7, Panchnama
of the place of incident (Offence) vide Exh. 9, samples collected
from the place of offence vide exh. 13. Panchnama of the cloths
of the complainant vide exh 14, panchnama of the physical
condition of accused at Exh. 15, certificate issued by Doctor TM
Patel/ E.V. John at exh. 16, receipt of muddamal by the FSL
from the Police Sub Inspector, Amraivadi vide Exh. 17, report of
the office in charge under the provisions of Section 157 of the
CRPC at Exh. 18, forwarding letter to the FSL to the PSI,
Amraivadi Police Station forwarding the FSL report at Exh. 19.
4. On re-appreciating the oral entire evidences of the
Complainant at Exh. 6, he stated that he had love affair with
one lady namely Mamtaben who is residing in his neighbour
since 1984. The accused forcibly loved her and wanted to marry
her. Mamtaben did not like the present accused and therefore,
the accused had tried to pour an acid on her and police case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/974/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
was also registered against the present accused, however,
compromise had taken place in the said incident. He also
further stated that on 09.12.1995, the accused had threaten
him and said that now onwards you remained vigilant and on
the said date only in the afternoon, just in front of his house
where there was a shed, he came alongwith 20 litre kerbo with
either kerosene or petrol and sprinkled over the shed and burnt
it. It is further stated that the complainant tried to snatch the
Kerbo and therefore, the liquid also spilled over him. It is
further stated that one piece of burning jute cloth was also
thrown upon him and he sustained burnt injuries on left hand
and on right and left legs, more particularly, on the right thigh.
After which, he was taken to L.G. Hospital and took treatment
as indoor patient for 30 days. It is further submitted that while
saving him, her mother was also got burnt injuries. This witness
has also identified piece of jute cloth and the Kerbo which the
accused was carried at the time of incident. He has also
identified the cloths which he was wearing during the alleged
incident.
This witness has been cross-examined at length. Since
other witness namely Bhimnath Pitambar has considered who
had examined vide Exh. 10, he is not relevant for the present
proceedings as he was hearsay evidence. More particularly, he
was not present at the place of incident since he was at the
place of his service, however, he came to know about the
incident from his mother who has expired on 05.11.1996. Thus,
on the date of recording the evidence his mother has already
expired and as has been stated by the witness cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/974/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
corroborated without examining her mother. Hence, is not
considered at this stage.
5. Secondly, Mamtaben Vasantbhai has also turned hostile
and despite being cross-examined by the prosecution, nothing
has come on record which would help the prosecution's case
and thus, also the said evidence is not help the prosecution's
case and lastly, the investigation officer namely Keshavbharati
Sawamy has been examined vide Exh. 12. The main cause of
alleged incidence is a love triangle between Mamtaben,
complainant and the accused. However, Mamtaben has not
supported the case of the prosecution and thus, the reason in
the alleged incident stands negated and the allegations by the
Complainant that the accused forcibly wanted to love relation
with Mamtaben are not proved. This lady has also denied the
fact of any love relation with the Complainant. It is also
required to be noted that the investigation officer has stated in
his cross examined that he is taken various statement of
independent witnesses residing near the place of incident.
However, except relatives of complainant, none of the
witnesses have been named in the chargesheet. He is also
clarified to the fact that he is not placed on record the
statements of the neighboring persons alongwith the
chargesheet since they were not supporting the case of the
prosecution. Under these circumstances, the deposition of the
complainant requires closed scrutiny. It is also required to be
noted that on perusal of the cross-examination, it is evident
that, when the incident of roof burning took place, he has
neither shouted nor raised any alarm nor has sought help from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/974/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
any of the neighbour nor named any single person who had
gathered at that time. It is also evident to note that the
matchstick which was found from the pent of the complainant
was found with kerosene. It is also required to be noted that
the certificate issued by the doctor who had examined the
complainant has found second degree superficial wounds. The
findings given by the Trial Judge, more particularly, by detailed
examination of the documentary as well as oral evidence which
has been recorded in para 11 to 20 cannot be said to be
perverse. Athis juncture, it would be profitable to refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, it is held in
the case of State of Karnataka V. Hemareddy (AIR 1981 SC
1417), wherein it is held as under:-
"... This Court has observed in Girja Nandini Devi V. Bigendra
Nandini Chaudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93 (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is
not the duty of the Apellate Court on the evidence to repeat the
narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the
trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given
by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily
suffice."
In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, this court is in
agreement with the findings recorded by the Learned Trial
Court in the impugned judgment and order and entire chain of
circumstances is not complete so as to bring home the guilt of
the accused.
6. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has stated in
examination in chief that after he was taken to the hospital, the
police came at the hospital and he had lodged the FIR,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/974/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2025
undefined
however, from perusal of Exh. 7, it does not transpire so. It is
also pertinent to note that he is stated in his deposition that he
was taken in hospital, however on perusal of Exh. 16 i.e., the
certificate given by the Doctor who had examined complainant,
has stated that he has come to the hospital with Police Yadi.
Thus, on material contradiction, having found on record the
veracity of the complaint does not repose confidence and no
conviction can be brought home on the basis of such deposition
which does not have ring of truth.
7. Thus, on re-appreciation of the entire oral as well as
documentary evidence on record, it cannot be said that the
judgment and order dated 30.03.1999 passed in Sessions Court
No. 63/1996 recording the acquittal of the accused is perverse
and requires inference in the ends of this Court and hence,
present Appeal stands rejected. The Judgment and order dated
30.03.1999 passed in Sessions Case no. 63/1996 is confirmed.
R and P be sent back to the trial court forthwith.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
