Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhaveshbhai Chandubhai Patel on 25 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/342/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 342 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
BHAVESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 25/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH
ROY)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 17.10.2012 passed in
Sessions Case No.313 of 2011 and Sessions Case No.85 of 2012 on the
file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, whereby
the respondents herein, who are three accused in the above sessions cases,
were acquitted of the charges under Sections 328, 365, 392 read with
Section 511 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC").
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/342/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
2. Factual matrix of the prosecution case may be stated as follows:
2.1 The victim, who is the complainant and examined as PW-2 by
name Sanjay Dharampal Yadav is the friend of a person called by name
Manish Pravinbhai Kakadiya. On 21.05.2011, at about 7:00 p.m., the
complainant went on his two wheeler from his house and when he
reached Prakash Sindhi High School, he met his friend Manish, who is in
the car, which is an Indigo vehicle. Manish invited the complainant to
board his car stating that he has installed a new sound system in his car
and requested him to listen to the music in the said sound system.
Accordingly, the complainant has board the car of Manish. Manish drove
the car and while they were going, Manish made the complainant smell
some substance. After smelling the same, he felt dizzy and while he was
going into an unconscious state, the complainant noticed that they
reached a place where there is a milestone. It is stated that thereafter,
about three persons that is the three accused herein, who are the
respondents in this appeal, were found in the car and two of them were
sitting on the back seat and one of them was sitting in the front seat and
all of them have stolen the gold ring, gold chain and rupees two thousand
from the complainant while he was in an unconscious state of mind and
thereafter, they brought him back to the place where they picked him up
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/342/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
and dropped him there and went away with the said gold rind, gold chain
and the cash of Rs.2,000/-.
2.2 On the next day morning i.e. on 22.05.2011, PW-2 lodged a report
with the police. The police registered the case against four accused for the
aforesaid offence and investigated the same. The main accused, who is
Mr.Manish, who picked up the complainant in his car and drove the same
and made the complainant smell the substance, which made him
unconscious, was not found during the investigation and he was not
arrested. Therefore, the case was investigated against the other three
accused, who are the respondents herein. Eventually, after completion of
investigation, police filed charge-sheet against these three accused.
2.3 During the course of trial, PW-1 to PW-5 witnesses were examined
and three exhibits were marked on behalf of prosecution to substantiate
its case against the respondents herein.
2.4 At the end of the trial, the Trial Court found the respondents not
guilty for any of the aforesaid offences with which they were charged and
thereby, acquitted them of the said charges.
2.5 Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred by the State
questioning the legality and validity of the said judgment of acquittal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/342/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
3. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard the learned
APP Mr.Bhargav Pandya for the State. Despite service of notice of rule,
respondent nos.1 to 3 did not appear before the Court and they did not
turn up for hearing. As it is an old matter of the year 2013, which is listed
under the caption "critically old matters" of 11 to 20 years, we are not
inclined to adjourn the case and we have decided to go through the
material on record from the record and proceedings and the paper book
and dispose of the case on merits.
4. We have carefully perused the record and evidence on record and
subjected the evidence to strict judicial scrutiny by way of reappraisal of
the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
5. Out of the five witnesses examined as PW-1 to PW-5, PW-1 is
only a panch witness for the scene of offence, where the complainant was
picked up by Manish in his car. So, he is not an eye witness to the
incident and he is only mediator for preparation of the scene of offence
observation report. So, his evidence is not useful to prove the complicity
of any of the accused in perpetrating the aforesaid offences. PW-2 is the
complainant and his evidence will be discussed later on. PW-3 is only an
uncle of PW-2 i.e. the complainant and he is also not an eye witness to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/342/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
the incident and he only spoke regarding the fact that he came to know
about the incident through PW-2 and his father; so, his evidence is also
not useful to establish the case of the prosecution against the accused.
According to the prosecution, PW-4 has seen the said Manish picking up
PW-2 in his car on the date of the offence, but PW-4 did not say in
specific terms in his evidence that he has seen Manish picking up PW-2
i.e. the complainant in his car and he stated that probably he might have
seen; therefore, his evidence is not believed by the Trial Court. Further,
he stated in cross-examination that as PW-2 informed him that Manish
has picked up in his car and took him that he deposed that he has seen
Manish picking up PW-2 in his car. So, his evidence is rightly
disbelieved by the Trial Court. He cannot be termed as direct eye witness
to the incident of Manish picking up the complainant in his car at the
school. PW-5 is only the Investigating Officer, who investigated the case.
There remains the evidence of PW-2, who is the complainant. According
to him, only Manish has picked him up in his car and he has seen only
Manish in the car on the date of offence. The said Manish is not the
accused in the above cases as he was absconding and he was not found
for arrest. As can be seen from the testimony of PW-2, there is nothing in
his evidence to prove that he has seen the present three respondents, who
are the accused in this case, in the car. According to him, after he was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/342/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
made to smell some substance by the said Manish that he become
unconscious and thereafter, his valuables were stolen. He did not say that
he has seen the present three accused in the car after he boarded the car.
So, there is absolutely no evidence on record whatsoever to prove that the
present three accused are in the car and that they travelled along with the
said Manish and that they have kidnapped the complainant and stolen his
valuables.
6. Further, it is significant to note here that prosecution did not
recover stolen property either the gold chain or the gold ring or the cash
of Rs.2,000/- from any of the accused herein. In fact, prosecution also did
not adduce any evidence to prove that the PW-2 is the owner of the said
gold ring or gold chain, which are alleged to have been stolen from him
on that day. So, the very fact that the respondents here have kidnapped
the complainant and thereafter, have stolen his valuables is not proved to
the hilt by the prosecution with any acceptable legal evidence on record.
7. Therefore, the Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record
and on proper appreciation of the same, has arrived at a right conclusion
that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the
charges levelled against them and thereby, acquitted the accused. We do
not find any manifest error of law in the impugned judgment of acquittal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/342/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
The findings of the Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of
evidence on record. Therefore, it calls for no interference in this appeal.
So, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Resultantly, appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of
acquittal of the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
Sd/-
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ABHISHEK
