Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 413 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore

2025-06-06

ANIRUDDHA P.MAYEE, SANJEEV J.THAKER

body2025
JUDGMENT : SANJEEV J. THAKER, J. 1. The present Criminal Appeal No.983 of 1998 with Criminal Appeal No.984 of 1998 have been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 03.09.1998, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.74 of 1996, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused at charges under sections 307, 332 and 114 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and section 135 of B.P. Act. 2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant - Vajesigh Gobarji alongwith Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh were performing duty as Head Constables at Chiloda outpost and on 07.07.1995, the complainant - Vajesigh Gobarji had gone to the outpost, and thereafter, at 2.00 p.m., on 07.07.1995, the complainant had gone for having his lunch at Chiloda Circle, Gandhinagar. It is further the case that one Babaji Madhaji Thakor alongwith his wife and children had come to meet the complainant - Vajesigh Gobarji and informed that one Shendhaji Thakor who is residing in his locality has filed a case against his son which is adjourned to 18.07.1995 and that Shendhaji and his brother Pratapji Dhulai Thakore had come to Babaji Madhaji Thakor and asked for money to settle the said case that has been filed against the son of Babaji Madhaji Thakor and as Babaji Madhaji Thakor had refused to pay the said amount, Sendhaji and his brother Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore threatened to assault Babaji Madhaji Thakor. That there is lot of tension in the locality and therefore it is not possible for him to go back to his residence. Thereafter, the complainant (Head Constable, Vajesigh Gobarji) alongwith Head Constable, Abdulbhai Mushabhai Shekh, Babaji Madhaji Thakor and his family went to Village Dasela and inquired about the three persons against whom Babaji Madhaji Thakor has complained i.e. Sendhaji, Sankaji, Sakaji and Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore and on reaching the said village - Dasela, the complainant - Vajesigh Gobarji could find Sendhaji and Sakaji present at their residence and thereafter met Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore. The complainant asked Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore as to why he was quarrelling with the Babaji Madhaji Thakor and told him to come to the Police Chowki and at that point of time the accused - Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore who was wearing a Baniyan, said that he will wear a shirt and also call the member of Jilla Panchayat, Mr. The complainant asked Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore as to why he was quarrelling with the Babaji Madhaji Thakor and told him to come to the Police Chowki and at that point of time the accused - Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore who was wearing a Baniyan, said that he will wear a shirt and also call the member of Jilla Panchayat, Mr. Lalbhai and thereafter that accused Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore, Sendhaji and Sakaji went inside the house and after wearing a shirt, Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore came out with an open sword and started saying that what is his offence and why the complainant has come to arrest him and thereafter gave the first blow on the complainant's head, but as the complainant - Vajesigh Gobarji had a stick in his hand, the said blow of the sword hit on the stick, and thereafter, Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore assaulted the complainant with the sword near the neck of the complainant and also on left back portion of his body. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the other accused, Sendhaji and Sakaji had brought sticks in their hand and when Head Constable Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh tried to intervene, Sendhaji took the stick from the hands of Head Constable, Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh and ran towards Head Constable Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh to assault him. At that time Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore had given a second blow of sword to the complainant and the same hit him on the left hand. The third assault of the sword by Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore was hit on the back of the complainant. 4. It is the case of prosecution that thereafter accused Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore with open sword started running after the Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh and on seeing the assault on the complainant, Sankaji ran away from the said spot. Sendhaji and Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore ran after Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh. After some time, Head Constable Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh came in an auto rickshaw and took the complainant to Civil Hospital. The complainant was given medical treatment and in the meantime, the incident was informed to the Police Station at Sector-7, and thereafter, the Police Investigation started. The said incident had occured on 07.07.1995, and thereafter Sakaji was arrested on 15.07.1995. Sendhaji came to be arrested on 20.07.1995, and thereafter, Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore was arrested by PSI, Rana from Dholka. The complainant was given medical treatment and in the meantime, the incident was informed to the Police Station at Sector-7, and thereafter, the Police Investigation started. The said incident had occured on 07.07.1995, and thereafter Sakaji was arrested on 15.07.1995. Sendhaji came to be arrested on 20.07.1995, and thereafter, Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore was arrested by PSI, Rana from Dholka. During the pendency of the trial, accused Sakaji had expired, and therefore, the case against Sakaji came to be abated. 5. The accused came to be charged under Sections 307 , 186, 332 and 333 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 135 of BOMBAY POLICE ACT . Since the respondent accused pleaded not guilty, the case was put up for trial and the same came to be tried as Sessions Case No.74 of 1996 with respect to the offences against Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore and Sessions Case No.77 of 1996 against Sendhaji Dholaji Thakor. 6. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses. The statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 came to be recorded of all the accused. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as there was only a circumstantial case against the accused. Aggrieved the appellant - State has preferred the present Criminal Appeals. The said appeals came to be admitted on 10.05.1999. 7. Learned APP Mr. J.K. Shah appearing for the appellant - State submits that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record. It has been argued that learned Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that the accused Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore and Sendhaji and Sakaji assembled with clear intention to commit murder of the Head Constable and thereby committed offence under Sections 307 and 104 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . Learned APP Mr. Shah has also argued that the respondent accused have committed offences under Sections 186 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE by obstructing prosecution witness i.e. complainant - Vajesigh Gobarji and Head Constable, Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh who were discharging his duty as a public servant and thereby committed offence under Sections 332 , 333 read with Section 114 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . Learned APP Mr. Learned APP Mr. Shah has also argued that the complaint of Vajesigh Gobarji is fully supported by the deposition of prosecution witness Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh who is examined by the prosecution at Exhibit-13. 8. Learned APP has also argued that upon perusing the complaint filed by Babaji Madhaji Thakor and that the complainant - Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh, Head Constable had gone to the place of incident while on duty and further Babaji Madhaji Thakor had also supported the case of the complainant which is corroborated by the Medical Reports, the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. He submitted that the Head Constable, Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh was the eye witness to the incident and he was present at the time of incident and saw the respondents accused inflicting injuries, more particularly, with stick and sword. The learned APP submited that Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh in his deposition has clearly given the picture of the incident which took place on 07.07.1995 and that he has also stated in his deposition that Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore had inflicted injury on the complainant by the sword. He submitted that attack was with clear intention to commit the murder of the complainant. He further submitted that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts of the present case. The trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused only on the ground that the version stated by the complainant, Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh and Babaji are different versions of the incident. He, therefore, submits that in view of the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court ought not to have acquitted the respondents accused, and therefore, it has been submitted that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the record and discarding the evidence while acquitting the respondent accused. Therefore, it is submitted that the Criminal Appeal be allowed and the respondent accused be convicted for the offences charged for. 9. Heard learned APP and perused the documents on record and considered the submissions in the present case. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. P.W.-1, who is the complainant and was a Head Constable on duty at Chiloda outpost. Therefore, it is submitted that the Criminal Appeal be allowed and the respondent accused be convicted for the offences charged for. 9. Heard learned APP and perused the documents on record and considered the submissions in the present case. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. P.W.-1, who is the complainant and was a Head Constable on duty at Chiloda outpost. He has deposed that he alongwith Head Constable Abdul Musabhai Shekh had gone to Chiloda Circle for their lunch when Babaji Madhaji Thakur informed him that he alongwith son had left the house as there was a threat to their life given by the accused Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore, Sendhaji and Sakaji Nathaji and that it was not possible for him to return to his house because of the said threat. The said witness P.W.-1 has thereafter deposed that he alongwith Head Constable Abdul Musabhai Shekh went to village - Dasela in an auto rickshaw and thereafter they met the accused at their house and the complainant P.W.1 was informed by Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore that after wearing a shirt he will come to the Police Chowki and so saying he went in the house of Sendhaji Dhulaji to wear a shirt and thereafter he came out with a sword and Sendhaji and Sakaji also came there with a stick and assaulted the complainant. The said complainant also states that the accused Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore had assaulted him on the left hand and on his back with the sword and that, thereafter, the three accused ran after the Head Constable Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh who ran towards Police Station. That, on seeing that the complainant was injured, the three accused ran away. Head Constable, Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh, thereafter, took the injured complainant to the Hospital for treatment. It is further stated in the deposition that the motive of the said incident is because a criminal case of rape has been filed against the son of Babaji. 10. In his cross-examination, the complainant i.e. P.W.-1 has stated that the application that was filed by Babaji against the accused has not been recorded in the Police Diary. The said witness also further deposed that he alongwith Abdul and Babaji had gone to village Dasela to search for the accused. The said witness also admits that he and Head Constable Abdulbhai Mushabhai Shekh were not wearing the Police uniform but were in civil dress. The said witness also further deposed that he alongwith Abdul and Babaji had gone to village Dasela to search for the accused. The said witness also admits that he and Head Constable Abdulbhai Mushabhai Shekh were not wearing the Police uniform but were in civil dress. The said witness has deposed that he was on talking terms with Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore since five months and there was no altercation between them during the incident. 11. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined Abdul Mushabhai Shekh, the Head Constable at Chiloda Police Chowki as P.W.-2. He has stated that he had gone to village Dasela alongwith Vajesigh Gobarji, Babaji and family of Babaji and other passengers. The said witness deposed that Vajesigh Gobarji and Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore did not talk to each other at the time of incident on 07.07.1995. If the evidence of P.W.-6 Babaji Madhaji Thakur is examined he states that after filing application at the Police Station and two Police Men have gone to the house of accused Sendhaji and P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 i.e. complainant and Head Constable have stated that they had gone to the premises with Babaji and his family, but Babaji himself states that he went to the Police Station and two Police Men had gone to the house of the accused Sendhaji, and thereafter, he went to his residence, and thereafter, he was having his lunch at that point of time, he heard shouting that Vajesigh Gobarji has been assaulted by sword, and therefore, he came out and saw Vajesigh Gobarji lying near the house of Sendhaji and wherein Vajesigh Gobarji was hit on the hand and neck by sword. In his deposition Babaji does not state the name of Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh but states that there was another Constable who brought Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh and took Vajesigh Gobarji in said auto rickshaw to a hospital. Babaji also in his cross examination states that he has not seen the incident and that he did not know Vajesigh Gobarji before the incident. The said witness also states that at that time he reached the place of incident, Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh Head Constable was not present. 12. On perusal of the oral evidence of Dr. Haresh Kumar Jethalal Khatri i.e. P.W.-3 and the Medical Report reveals that there is injury/abrasion on the back of injured and side of neck. 13. The said witness also states that at that time he reached the place of incident, Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh Head Constable was not present. 12. On perusal of the oral evidence of Dr. Haresh Kumar Jethalal Khatri i.e. P.W.-3 and the Medical Report reveals that there is injury/abrasion on the back of injured and side of neck. 13. Even the evidence of P.W.-14 does not indicate that offence has been committed by the accused. According to the prosecution there are two eye witnesses and both being Head Constables and there cannot be any contradiction in their deposition. That P.W. 6 Babaji clearly states in his deposition that before the incident he did not know the complainant - Vajesigh Gobarji. Also P.W.-6 Babaji Madhaji deposes that after filing the application in Police Station, he had gone to his residence and was having lunch and that he had not gone to village Dasela and two Police Men only had gone there. Further in the deposition of the complainant it has been stated that he alongwith Head Constable Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh had gone in an auto rickshaw to village Dasela. Whereas P.W.-2 has stated that he alongwith Babaji and his family and the complainant alongwith other passengers had gone to village Dasela. Therefore, there are different versions and it cannot be said that there is minor discrepancy in the said evidence since as per the prosecution Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh was present at the time of incident. 14. Evidence reveals that Babaji Madhaji was not knowing the complainant and had met him in a hotel at Chiloda Circle and not at the Police Station. P.W. - Babaji has deposed that he was given a threat by the accused, and therefore, was not in a position to go to his residence the entire night. Whereas Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh, Head Constable has stated that they have gone to the village Dasela with Babaji. P.W. - Babaji has also stated that he was not present at the time of incident nor has seen the incident. Therefore, there are major contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the evidence of the complainant Vajesigh Gobarji, evidence of Head Constable Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh and deposition of P.W. - Babaji all contradict each other. Therefore, there are major contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the evidence of the complainant Vajesigh Gobarji, evidence of Head Constable Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh and deposition of P.W. - Babaji all contradict each other. There is also contradiction in the deposition of Abdul Musabhai Shekh and Vajesigh Gobarji with respect to events that took place before the assault between the complainant and Pratapji Dhulaji Thakore. It is not coming forward that when did P.W. - Babaji give his application against the accused. The fact that whether Abdulbhai Musabhai Shekh was present at the time of incident is also not proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. 15. After going through the evidence on record it cannot be said that there is error committed by the trial Court while appreciating the same. The prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent accused. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses relied upon by the prosecution itself is contradictory. The conduct of the P.Ws. relied upon is not in consonance with the prosecution case and it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent accused. The respondent accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt as has been held by the learned trial Court. The view taken by the trial Court is plausible and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the learned APP has not been able to demonstrate the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court are contrary to the evidence on record. The findings arrived at by the trial Court are in conformity with the evidence on record. Moreover, there are no circumstantial reasons and/or glaring mistakes in the order passed by the trial Court. Looking to the facts of the present case and the evidence on record the order of acquittal is not required to be interfered with as there is no manifest infirmity and the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are just and proper. 16. In the present case, we find neither any chain of evidence nor the guilt of the accused having committed the crime to be proven much less beyond reasonable doubt. The conclusion of the guilt has not been established. The prosecution has not proved the chain of evidence conclusively. 16. In the present case, we find neither any chain of evidence nor the guilt of the accused having committed the crime to be proven much less beyond reasonable doubt. The conclusion of the guilt has not been established. The prosecution has not proved the chain of evidence conclusively. After considering the entire testimony of P.W.-3, we come to the conclusion that there is improvement and exaggeration in his statements. The trial Court has given sound and cogent reasons for discarding the testimony of witnesses. 17. In view of the aforesaid observations and evidence on record, the prosecution has not established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal does not require any interference. The present Criminal Appeals are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.