Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 996 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Bhagwansinh Ramsinh Vaghela

2025-09-08

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, D.M.VYAS

body2025
JUDGMENT : CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 31.05.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.116 of 2011 on the file of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Anand whereby the respondent nos.1 to 4, who were A-1 to A-4 in the said case were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that A-2 to A-4 are the sons of A-1 and P.W.-2 is the son of P.W.-1 and they are related to each other. Both the families got a dispute relating to a passage which is nearby their fields. When P.W.-2 was passing through the said passage, A-1 questioned him as to why he was passing through their passage. Therefore, there was enmity between both the families relating to the dispute pertaining to the said passage. 3. While so, it is stated that on 28.11.2005 at about 9:30 am when P.W.-1 and her son P.W.-2 were in their house, A-1 to A-4, armed with sticks, came and trespassed into their house and thereafter, while quarreling with P.W.-1, A-1 picked up a kerosene can which is available in the said house and handed over the same to A-3 and A-3 sprinkled the said kerosene all over the house and thereafter A-2 has set fire to the furniture and other articles in the house with the matchstick and while the house was engulfed in fire, that A-1 to A-4 also attacked P.W.-2 with sticks and beat him and thereafter A-1 to A-4 came out of the house. P.W.s- 4 to 6, who are the residents of that locality have witnessed A-1 to A-4 coming out of the said house. It is stated that some articles in the house were burnt in the house, but the house was intact. 4. Thereafter, P.W.-1 lodged a report with the police at about 11:45 am on the same day. The said report was registered as a case for the offences punishable under Sections 436 , 435, 427, 452, 336, 323, 504, 506(2) and Section 114 of IPC. The case was investigated. The forensic expert visited the scene of offence and examined the same and he has collected some burnt material and after examining the said burnt material, he opined that kerosene smell is emanating from the said burnt material. A report was given by him to that effect. The case was investigated. The forensic expert visited the scene of offence and examined the same and he has collected some burnt material and after examining the said burnt material, he opined that kerosene smell is emanating from the said burnt material. A report was given by him to that effect. During the course of investigation, police have observed the scene of offence in the presence of panch witness. Thereafter, on the next day i.e., on 29.11.2005, police have arrested A-2 to A-4 and they have arrested A-1 on 06.12.2005. On the disclosure statement said to have been given by A-2 and A-3, it is stated that they have produced the sticks used by them and the sticks were recovered and seized by the police in the presence of the mediator, who is examined as P.W.-10. After completion of the investigation, eventually, the police have filed chargesheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 5. After the accused made their appearance in the trial Court, the trial Court has framed the charges punishable under Sections 436 , 435, 427, 452, 336, 323, 504, 506(2) and Section 114 of IPC. They were read over and explained to the accused. They denied the said charges and claimed to be tried. 6. During the course of the trial, the prosecution got examined P.W.s 1 to 16 witnesses and got marked 17 documents to substantiate its case against the accused. 7. At the conclusion of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court found the accused not guilty for the charges levelled against them and thereby acquitted all the accused for the aforesaid charges. 8. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the instant appeal assailing the legality and validity of the judgment of acquittal of the trial Court. 9. When the appeal came-up for hearing, we have heard learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the State and Learned Counsel Mr. S. K. Kabra for the respondents. 10. The evidence on record prima-facie establishes that both the families of the accused and the de facto complainant are related to each other and their agriculture lands are situate adjacent to the lands of each other. It further establishes that there has been a dispute between both the families relating to a passage which is available near their fields. 10. The evidence on record prima-facie establishes that both the families of the accused and the de facto complainant are related to each other and their agriculture lands are situate adjacent to the lands of each other. It further establishes that there has been a dispute between both the families relating to a passage which is available near their fields. When P.W.-2, who is son of P.W.-1, was passing through the said passage earlier, A-1 questioned him in this regard and as such dispute relating to the said passage had been in existence between the said families. 11. Citing the said dispute relating to the passage as a motive, it is stated by the prosecution that on 28.11.2005, A-1 along with his sons, who are A-2 to A- 4, came to the house of P.W.-1 while she and her son P.W.-2 were in the house at about 9:30 am and trespassed into the said house and thereafter, they have set fire to the articles available in the house by pouring kerosene on the said articles and setting fire to them with a matchstick. It is also the case of the prosecution that A-1 to A-4 who came to the said house armed with sticks have also attacked P.W.-2 with the said sticks and beat him. The is the substratum of the prosecution case. 12. In order to prove the said case against the accused, prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of P.W.- 1, who is the de facto complainant and the evidence of her son, who is P.W.-2, who are the inmates of the said house. They are also relying on the evidence of P.W.s- 4 to 6, who are the residents of the said locality, who have only seen A-1 to A-4 coming out of the said house after the incident took place. 13. At the outset, It is relevant to note that the evidence of P.W.s- 4 to 6, who are the inmates of the said locality, is not much useful to prove what has actually transpired inside the house and to prove that the accused have set fire to the articles in the house and that they have attacked P.W.-2 with sticks and beat him. They have only stated that they have seen the accused coming out of the house after the incident. They have only stated that they have seen the accused coming out of the house after the incident. Therefore, their evidence is not much relevant to prove the actual offence of setting fire to the articles in the house and to prove that A-1 to A-4 attacked P.W.-2 with sticks and beat him. 14. So, there remains only the evidence of P.W.s-1 and 2, who are inmates of the said house. According to the prosecution case, they are the direct witness to the incident. So, their evidence is required to be considered and subjected to strict judicial scrutiny. We have meticulously considered their evidence on record and subjected the same to strict judicial scrutiny. We have absolutely no hesitation to straight-away hold after considering their evidence that their evidence is very much inconsistent with each other and their evidence is also inconsistent with the contents of the FIR, which is of the earliest version, lodged by the P.W.-1. Therefore, their evidence is found to be not trustworthy. 15. In the FIR that was lodged by the P.W.-1 at the earliest point of time, she has unequivocally stated that after entering the house and quarreling with them, A-1 has picked-up kerosene can in their house and handed over the same to A-3 and A-3 sprinkled the kerosene in the house and then A-2 lit the matchstick and set fire to the said articles in the house. This is the specific version given by her in the FIR which was immediately lodged at 11:45 am itself on the date of offence, within a time gap of two hours. Now, contrary to the said version, she has stated in the evidence given by her as P.W.-1 in the Court that A-4 has given the kerosene can to A-2 and A-2 has sprinkled the kerosene on the articles in the house and he has set fire. Thus, the evidence given by P.W.-1 runs completely contrary to the version given by her in the FIR, which is of the earliest version regarding the overt acts given by her regarding the manner in which the articles were burnt by the accused. So, her evidence is completely inconsistent with the earlier version stated by her in the FIR. This makes her testimony wholly unreliable. So, her evidence is completely inconsistent with the earlier version stated by her in the FIR. This makes her testimony wholly unreliable. Therefore, the testimony given by P.W.-1 to that effect cannot be relied on for the purpose of holding the accused guilty of committing any such offence. 16. Even though P.W.-2, who is her son, initially stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused poured kerosene on the articles and set fire in the house, he has stated in his cross-examination that after the accused entered the house, that they have kept him in another room of the house and closed the doors and locked the same. So, when the accused have confined him in another room of the house and locked the doors of the said room, he has no opportunity to witness the accused setting fire to the articles in the house as the same is not visible to him as he has been confined inside the room. So, this shows that the evidence given by him in his examination-in-chief is completely false. 17. Further, according to the case of the prosecution, the sticks said to have been used by the accused to attack P.W.-2 were recovered at the instance of the accused on the disclosure statement given by them after their arrest. A-2 to A-4 were arrested on 29.11.2005. As per disclosure statement given by A-2 and A-3, they produced the sticks in the presence of P.W.-10, who is the mediator. But P.W.-10 did not support the said version of the prosecution case. Therefore, the production of the sticks by A-2 and A-3 and seizure of the same at their instance is not proved as P.W.-10 did not support the said version of the prosecution. Further, P.W.-1 did not identify the said sticks as the sticks used in commission of the offence when she gave evidence in the Court. Now, it is significant to note that when these sticks, which are allegedly seized by the police, were confronted to P.W.-2 at the time of giving evidence by him in the Court, he has stated that they are not the sticks used by the accused for beating him. Therefore, it is now evident that these sticks are planted objects in this case by the police to bolster their case. 18. Therefore, it is now evident that these sticks are planted objects in this case by the police to bolster their case. 18. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution suffers from several fatal legal infirmities and the same is not trustworthy and reliable. So, when such is the quality of the evidence that was adduced, it is not safe to rely on the said evidence for the purpose of arriving at any conclusion against the accused to hold them guilty for any of the charges levelled against them. It is well established law that motive is a double edged weapon and it can be used for committing the offence and it can also be used by other party for false implication of the accused. When the case is considered with reference to the evidence adduced as discussed supra, there is more possibility to believe that the accused are falsely implicated in the case because of the enmity that is existing between the both families on account of the dispute relating to the passage at their fields. 19. Therefore, after considering the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same, the trial Court arrived at a right conclusion and rightly recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. Upon considering the said evidence on record and on reappraisal of the same, we are in complete concurrence with the findings recorded by the trial Court. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. So, the judgment of acquittal is perfectly sustainable under the law and it calls for no interference in this appeal. So, the appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed. 20. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused.