Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 692 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Rupabhai Valabhai Patel

2025-07-08

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, D.M.VYAS

body2025
JUDGMENT : CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.07.2013 rendered in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dahod, whereby, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in the said case, were acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 436 , 506(2), 147 and 148 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC). 2. Fact germane to dispose of this appeal may briefly be stated as follow: 2.1 The complainant by name Manishaben Mahendrasinh Chauhan is the resident of Dabhwa Faliya, presently residing at: Dogawada, Taluka: Devgadh Bariya. Mahendrasinh is her husband. It is stated that on 12.12.2009 at about 8:30 p.m. in the night time, PW-3 who is the sister-in-law of the complainant, who is examined as PW-1, came to the house of PW-1 and informed her that her husband, while driving a Jeep, dashed against the son and the son-in-law of Accuse No. 1 (A-1) and that, they died in the said accident and A-1 got enraged and that, he is coming with A-2 to A-5 towards her house. At that time, it is stated that, PW-1, who is the complainant and her brother-in-law who is examined as PW-2 and her sister-in-law who is examined as PW-3, have seen A-1 to A-5 coming towards their house while they were inside the house. It is stated that A-1 was carrying a Dhariya (Scythe), A-2 and A-3 were carrying sticks and A-4 and A-5 were holding two kerosene tins with them and that, they all came to her house and set fire to her brick and wooden house and her house was gutted in fire. Immediately, PW-1 to PW-3 came out of the house from the backdoor and they escaped and ran away from that place. 2.2 Thereafter, on 08.05.2010, almost after five months, PW-1 lodged a report with the police relating to the said incident. The police registered the said report as a case for the offences punishable under Sections 436 , 506(2), 147 and 148 of the IPC. The case was investigated. The expert of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) visited the scene of offence on the requisition made by the police. He has observed the scene of offence. The police registered the said report as a case for the offences punishable under Sections 436 , 506(2), 147 and 148 of the IPC. The case was investigated. The expert of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) visited the scene of offence on the requisition made by the police. He has observed the scene of offence. He found nothing incriminating like kerosene tins or any material to show that the house was set fire with kerosene. The scene of offence was observed by the police in the presence of PW-4 and PW-5, mediators and scene of offence observation report was prepared. 2.3 After completion of investigation, police filed the Charge- sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 436 , 506(2), 147 and 148 of the IPC. 2.4 The trial Court framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 436 , 506(2), 147 and 148 of the IPC against the accused. The accused denied the said charges and claimed to be tried. 2.5 During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-12 witnesses and got marked five exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused. 2.6 At the end of the trial, on appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused not guilty of any of the charges levelled against them and acquitted them of all the charges by the impugned judgment. 2.7 Therefore, aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal against the respondents assailing the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal. 3. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard Ms. Krina Calla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State and Ms. Heta Panchal, learned counsel for the respondents – accused. 3.1 The genesis of the offence appears to be the alleged accident said to have been caused by the husband of PW-1 while driving the Jeep resulting into the death of the son and the son-in-law of A-1. So, it is stated that A-1, out of infuriation, bore grudge against the husband of PW-1 and he came along with A-2 to A-5 to attack the family members of the husband of PW-1 and in the said process, they have gutted the house of PW-1 in fire. So, it is stated that A-1, out of infuriation, bore grudge against the husband of PW-1 and he came along with A-2 to A-5 to attack the family members of the husband of PW-1 and in the said process, they have gutted the house of PW-1 in fire. In essence, this is the motive that was attributed to the accused to commit the said offence of Arson punishable under Section 436 of the IPC. 3.2 However, as can be seen from the evidence on record, except making a bald assertions to this effect, attributing the said motive to the accused, absolutely there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that any such accident occurred while the husband of PW-1 was driving the Jeep and that the son and the son- in-law of A-1 died in the said accident. So, the alleged motive that is attributed to the accused for committing the said offence of Arson, is not proved and established by adducing any semblance of evidence to that effect. 3.3 Be that as it may, the relevant witnesses who were examined to prove that the accused gutted the house of PW-1 in fire are PW-1 to PW-3. PW-1 is the complainant, PW-2 is her brother-in-law and PW-3 is her sister-in-law. Although, they stated that they have seen the A-1 to A-5 coming towards their house while A-1 was holding a Dhariya, A-2 and A-3 were holding sticks and A-4 and A-5 were holding kerosene tins, in the cross-examination of PW-3, she prevaricated from the said evidence and only stated that she has only seen a mob coming towards their house and thereafter, they ran away from the backdoor of their house. This clearly indicates that their evidence given in examination-in-chief that they have seen A-1 to A-5 coming towards their house while holding Dhariya, sticks and kerosene tins, is absolutely false. Further, the alleged incident took place at 8:30 p.m. during night time. Distance from which they have seen the accused coming to their house is not clearly spoken to by PW-1 to PW-3. Further, the alleged incident took place at 8:30 p.m. during night time. Distance from which they have seen the accused coming to their house is not clearly spoken to by PW-1 to PW-3. Nothing is emanating from the evidence on record to prove that there are any street lights or any lights available at the scene of offence or in that street to enable PW-1 to PW-3 to properly identify A-1 to A-5 as the persons who are in the mob, who approached their house with the said Dhariya, sticks and kerosene tins. Even, as can be seen from the scene of offence observation report, there is nothing to indicate in it that there are any street lights or any lights available at the scene of offence for PW-1 to PW-3 to properly identify A-1 to A-5 during that night time. Further, the PW-1 admitted in her cross-examination that at that time, they can only identify the persons from a distance of 10 feet only. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that there are street lights or any lights at the scene of offence. Further, PW-1 to PW-3 have only seen a mob approaching their house. So, in the absence of any source of light at the scene of offence, the evidence given by them that they have seen A-1 to A-5 approaching their house with Dhariya, sticks and kerosene tins, is intrinsically untrustworthy and not believable at all. At any rate, as there is no source of light to identify the assailants, one cannot arrive at any definite conclusion that it is A-1 to A-5 approached their house and committed the said offence of Arson. Further, PW-1 to PW-3 did not speak regarding the independent overt acts of A-1 to A-5. They did not say anything by giving the details as to who poured the kerosene on the house and who lit the fire and how they lit the fire, whether it is with matchstick or otherwise, is not clarified. Therefore, there is no proper evidence on record to definitely prove with certainty that A-1 to A-5 have poured kerosene and set fire to the house of PW-1. PW- 1 to PW-3 did not say that they have seen any of these accused pouring kerosene on the house and setting fire to the house. Therefore, there is no proper evidence on record to definitely prove with certainty that A-1 to A-5 have poured kerosene and set fire to the house of PW-1. PW- 1 to PW-3 did not say that they have seen any of these accused pouring kerosene on the house and setting fire to the house. 3.4 It is also significant to note that when the expert of FSL examined the said scene of offence, he did not find any incriminating evidence or material like kerosene tins or ashes containing kerosene or matchstick or any explosives at the scene of offence. There is no FSL report at all on record. Therefore, how the house was gutted in fire, whether any kerosene was used or not, is not proved with any scientific evidence on record. No kerosene tins are also seized. Even the ashes relating to that burnt house, is not seized for examination by the expert of FSL. 3.5 Further, the offence took place on 12.12.2009. The FIR was lodged five months thereafter on 08.05.2010. Thus, there is inordinate and abnormal delay in lodging the FIR. Although, an attempt was made to explain the said delay stating that the family members of PW-1 were not allowed to enter the village and that, due to fear, they did not enter the village and after five months, that they entered the village and thereafter, they lodged the FIR, the said explanation is not satisfactory and it cannot be believed. Even though, they were not allowed to enter the village, nothing prevented them to approach the police to lodge the report immediately after the incident, within a reasonable time. Therefore, the very lodging of the FIR with a delay of five months against A-1 to A-5, throws any amount of doubt regarding their false implication in this case. As noticed supra, the very motive attributed to A-1 to commit the offence along with A-2 to A-5 is not proved and established in this case. This throws any amount of doubt regarding the complicity of A-1 to A-5 in perpetrating the said offence. Therefore, the cumulative effect of all the above discussed circumstances and facts leads to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for any of the aforesaid offences with acceptable legal evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, the cumulative effect of all the above discussed circumstances and facts leads to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for any of the aforesaid offences with acceptable legal evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. At any rate, they are at least entitled to benefit of doubt in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 3.6 After considering the said evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same, the trial Court arrived at a right conclusion and recorded a finding of acquittal against the accused. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. After considering the said evidence on record and on reappraisal of the same, we are also of the same view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the said charges. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal warrants no interference in this appeal. The appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed. 4. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. R&P be remitted back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.