CR.A/1436/2005 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1436 of 2005 With CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 32 of 2008 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 SATTARBHAI ISHABHAI AND OTHERS ========================================= =Appearance in Criminal Appeal No.1436 of 2005 MR SP HASURKAR, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant MR CL SONI for Opponent Nos. 1 - 8, 10, - for Opponent(s) : 9, Appearance in Criminal Revision Application No.32 of 2008 SUO MOTU MR SP HASURKAR, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No.1 MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA, for Respondent No.2 ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and CR.A/1436/2005 2/5 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 14/07/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) 1. The appellant- State of Gujarat has filed this Appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gondal in Sessions Case No.88 of 2000 dated 01.03.2005. 2. The facts, in brief, from the judgment are such that on 19.02.2000, the P.S.O., Dhoraji Police Station received telephonic message from Dhoraji Government Hospital that one Ravjibhai Panchabhai of Moti Marad consumed poison and expired. He registered accident case as C.R.No.00/2000 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since the incident had taken place within Patanvav Police Station, the papers were forwarded to the Patanvav Police Station. The investigation was then handed over to Circle P.I. of Dhoraji Police Station, who recorded the statement of Devabhai Virambhai Ahir on 09.03.2000 who stated that deceased Ravjibhai Panchabhai had his agricultural land in Udakiya village, that he had encroached Government land, that since he was taking away sand from the pond of the village Udakiya without paying royalty, Sarpanch of the Village Sattarbhai- respondent No.1 and other persons abused him and beat him with stick and balika and said, “Government land does not belong to your father”, “if you take away sand from the pond without paying royalty, will break your legs in two pieces”. “You die otherwise we will kill you”. Shri Devabhai further stated that after saying this, the accused left, that because of the fear Ravjibhai then consumed pesticides and committed suicide and had written a chit disclosing the reason for his death. Since the statement of Devabhai revealed cognizable CR.A/1436/2005 3/5 JUDGMENT offence, C.P.I Dhorajibhai recorded the same in the form of complaint and sent it to Patanvav Police Station. The P.S.O., Patanvav Police Station took the said complaint on F.I.R. register on 09.03.2000 and registered the said complaint as C.R No.17/2000 and handed over investigation to C.P.I., Dhoraji who after making panchnama and recording the statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhoraji on 17.03.2000 under Sections 306, 143, 144, 147, 352, 323, 504, 506(2), 201, 202, 204 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The said charge sheet was registered as Criminal Case No.376/2000. As the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to try the offences for which the charge sheet was filed, the learned Magistrate passed order dated 30.06.2000 below Exh.17 under Section 209 of the Code committing the case to the Sessions Court, Gondal, where it was registered as Sessions Case No.88 of 2000. The case was then transferred to the Court of the learned Fast Track Judge, Gondal. 3. The learned Judge framed the charge against the respondents at Exh.12 on 21.8.2004 for the above-stated offences under the Indian Penal Code. The appellants did not plead guilty and, therefore, put to trial. 4. The prosecution examined the complainant at Exh.24 and other seven witnesses, namely Arjanbhai Nathabhai- Exh.29, Muktaben Mohanbhai- Exh.30, Faruk alias Hakko Dost- Exh.31, Kishorbhai Jerambhai-Exh.32, Vallabhbhai Devabhai-Exh.33, Gordhanbhai Bhaveshbhai- Exh.34 and Bhanubhai Babubhai-Exh.35 to prove the charge against the accused. The prosecution also examined Police Constable Ranchhodbhai Arjanbhai-Exh.36, Dr. Hiralal Gordhanbhai- Exh.37 and C.P.I. Shri S.N. Bapodara- at Exh.43. The prosecution also adduced documentary evidence in support of its case. The seven witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the case of the prosecution. They were, CR.A/1436/2005 4/5 JUDGMENT therefore, declared hostile and permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. In the cross-examination, those witnesses stated that it is not correct that they knew about the incident but to help the accused, they are giving false evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by them. It is the case that the deceased has consumed poison and, therefore, the accused were charged for having committed offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith other offences. As the story of the prosecution goes to show that Ravjibhai Panchabhai used to excavate sand from the pond of village Udakiya without paying royalty, threat was given to him. 6. In our considered opinion, this kind of threat alone is not sufficient to bring an offence within the ambit of abatement. Mere threat cannot be construed as the case of the prosecution and in this case to bring the case within the definition of abatement, there had to be some inducement, which persuaded the deceased to commit suicide. It cannot be held that the findings as arrived by the learned Trial Judge are in any way of the nature, which can be said to be perverse or against the law. Most of witnesses, as examined by the prosecution, have turned hostile and, in that view of the matter also, the findings of the learned Trial Judge are not liable to be interfered. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The Criminal Revision Application is disposed of. Bail bond stands cancelled. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) CR.A/1436/2005 5/5 JUDGMENT omkar