CR.A/108219/1985 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1082 of 1985 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== STATE OF GUJARAT Versus AHMADBHAI ABUBHAI & ANOTHER ====================================== Appearance : Mr Maulik Nanavati, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant MR PR ABICHANDANI for the Opponents ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 15/07/2008 CR.A/108219/1985 2/6 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) The present appeal has been preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging the judgment and order dated 19.08.1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.14 of 1985 acquitting the present respondents – original accused of offences punishable under Section 302, 364, 201 read with Section 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Nisar and the present respondents were engaged in business of sale of ice. Earlier, they were partners in the business, but then separated. Later on, for business reasons they again formed a syndicate and their business relations have ever since been cordial. Sometime in the month of September 1983, Nisar had gone for Haj and returned in November 1983. On 14th November 1983, i.e. the date of the incident, Nisar came home in the afternoon for lunch and while leaving he informed his wife, Fareeda, that he was going along with accused persons to Navapur for collecting money from buyers for the period while he was out of country. Nisar did not return home till late at night and so his wife went to the house of the accused next morning to enquire about Nisar. At that time, she was informed that the collection programme had been cancelled and that the accused had not gone to Navapur. Instead, Ahmed had gone to Vapi for some work. As Nisar was not found, the complaint of his being missing was lodged with the police on 16th November 1983. The police suspected the present respondents to have killed Nisar and therefore arrested them. After the investigation was completed, the present respondents were charged for causing death of Nisar and were put on trial. CR.A/108219/1985 3/6 JUDGMENT The trial Court after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by it to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This being a case of circumstantial evidence, the trial Judge found that the prosecution has not established a complete chain of circumstances, which, when cumulatively viewed, unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. We have heard Mr Maulik Nanavati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr P.R.Abichandani for the respondent- accused. Mr Adil Mehta, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant and he was also permitted to assist the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. With the assistance of counsel for both the sides, we have perused the judgment impugned before us and have gone through the entire record of the case. Undisputedly, this is a case of circumstantial evidence and Mr Nanavati, learned Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the circumstances which point towards the guilt of the accused and admit of no other inference. Mr Nanavati has submitted that the first circumstance against the accused is that they were last seen together with the deceased - Nisar. He has argued that three witnesses have categorically stated that they saw the accused in the company of the deceased in the evening of 14th November, going in a blue coloured truck. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There may be cases where, on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death, a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the CR.A/108219/1985 4/6 JUDGMENT accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide. In the present case, there is no such proximity of time and place. The dead body had been recovered about 3 days after the date on which the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. The distance between the two places is about 20-30 kilometers. The event of the two accused persons having departed with the deceased and thus last seen together does not bear such close proximity with the death of the victim by reference to time or place. Merely because the accused were last seen with the deceased a few days before his death, they cannot be held liable for the offence of having caused the death of the deceased. Even otherwise, the evidence of Jubeda Begum, PW 19 and Muzaffar Khan, PW 28, who last see the deceased in the company of accused is not free from doubt. Though Jubeda Begum had identified the accused in the Test Identification Parade, it is of no consequence as the evidence shows that the pictures of accused were published in the newspapers prior to the date on which parade was held. The statement of Muzaffar Khan and other witness of last seen was recorded almost four months after the incident. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused. However, careful examination of the evidence shows that villagers of Kovali village had complained about a foul smell coming from top of the hill from where the dead body was subsequently found. This fact together with the evidence of panchas that the accused did not say anything to them and simply led them to the top of the hill would not bring Section 27 of the Evidence Act into play and therefore cannot be termed as recovery admissible in law. Also, as observed by the trial Judge, possibility of police having prior knowledge of the existence of the dead body lying on CR.A/108219/1985 5/6 JUDGMENT top of the hill cannot be ruled out. We may also notice that the reason given by the prosecution for the deceased to accompany the accused persons was collection of money from Navapar village. It has come on record that recovery had already been made on 13th November and therefore when the money had already been collected there was hardly any necessity for the deceased to have along with the accused for effecting recovery. Therefore, the motive as suggested by the prosecution has not been proved. The circumstance of recovery of truck used in the commission of crime and the scooter of the deceased is also suspect. There is no evidence to show as to who brought the tempo to the garage and as to who drove from the garage to the police station. Both the scooter and tempo have been seized by the police without drawing a panchnama. Also, both the vehicles were brought to the police station prior to lodging of the FIR or the arrest of the accused. Further, it has come in evidence that the truck was washed sometime in the month of February. Yet, stains were found on the seat of tempo when they were sent for forensic examination in March. It is also strange that bloodstains would be found on the seat of the tempo despite the fact that the tempo was kept in open at the police station and remained exposed to natural vagaries. Therefore, this aspect of the prosecution case is improbable and suspicious and therefore loses its significance. Lastly, the recovery of bloodstained clothes worn by the accused at the time of incident is also not free from doubt. The clothes are said to be soaked in water in a bucket. The sequence of circumstances shows that there could be a contamination, but, in any case, such recovery in its isolation would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. CR.A/108219/1985 6/6 JUDGMENT For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the findings given by the trial Court are cogent, correct and sufficient. There is no infirmity or perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court, which would call for interference at our hands. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the acquittal deserves to be upheld. Appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds stand cancelled. (Bhagwati Prasad, J.) (S.R.Brahmbhatt, J.) *mohd