{"id":131308,"date":"2008-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-05-24T10:51:24","modified_gmt":"2016-05-24T05:21:24","slug":"gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gordhanbhai vs State on 6 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Gordhanbhai vs State on 6 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/916\/2000\t 24\/ 24\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 916 of 2000\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nGORDHANBHAI\nMATHURBHAI VASAVA - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n:\n \n\n \nMS\nSADHANA SAGAR appointed by Legal Aid Committee for Appellant \nMR\nMUKESH PATEL APP for\nrespondent \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \n\t\t\t\tORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)<\/p>\n
1.
\nSole appellant (‘the accused’ for short) was charged and tried by the
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara (‘the trial Court’ for
\nshort) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
\nPenal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and under Section 135 of the Bombay
\nPolice Act (‘BP Act’ for short) in Sessions Case No.41 of 2000 on the
\naccusation that he has committed murder of his sister-in-law
\nNankiben, in a very petty and trifle dispute of not lending money by
\nher to him. At the end of the trial, the accused was found guilty of
\nthe offences with which he was charged and, therefore, the trial
\ncourt vide judgment and order dated 14.9.2000 convicted him for the
\nsaid offences and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of
\nRs.1,000\/- i.d., RI for six months for the offence under Section 302
\nIPC and RI for three months and fine of Rs.100\/- i.d., RI for ten
\ndays for the offence under Section 135 of the BP Act.\n<\/p>\n
1.1.\t\tAggrieved
\nthereby the accused has filed this  appeal under Section 374 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure (‘the Code’ for short) through jail
\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n
2.
\nThe prosecution case as disclosed from the telephone vardhi received
\nby P.W.10, Kantibhai Balabhai Rathwa, ASI, Karjan Police Station and
\nunfolded during trial is as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.1.\n<\/p>\n
Kesrisinh Samantsinh, ASI, Buckle No.1016, serving at Raopura Police
\nStation, Vadodara City was on duty at Government Hospital, received a
\nvardhi at 4.15 P.M., from CMO Smt. Pravinaben Thakkar to the effect
\nthat one woman named Nankiben, wife of Budhabhai Ramanbhai Vasava,
\naged 35 years, occupation labour work, residing at Nishaliya, Taluka
\nKarjan, District Vadodara, had exchange of words on that day with
\nGordhanbhai Mathurbhai Vasava at 13.45 hours when she was doing
\nlabour work in the field of Kantibhai Ambalal Patel. The said woman
\nwas injured with a wooden log at face, head and chest and she was
\nbrought for treatment and was under treatment at that time. Her
\ncondition was serious. The said telephone vardhi is at Ex.23. The
\nsaid vardhi was registered  by P.W.10,  Kantibhai Balabhai Rathwa,
\nASI of Karjan Police Station, vide CR No.229 of 1999 for commission
\nof the offence under Section 325 IPC. During the course of treatment,
\nNankiben died in SSG Hospital, Vadodara, therefore, offence of
\nSection 302 was added.\n<\/p>\n
2.2.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter PW 13, Amrutlal Ramjibhai Chaudhari, PSI took over the
\ncase and started investigation. He went to SSG Hospital, Vadodara and
\nheld inquest on the dead body of Nankiben, sent the dead body for
\npost mortem examination and recorded statements of witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
2.3.\t\tAfter
\nthat the investigation was transferred to P.W.14,  Moinuddin
\nSirajuddin Shaikh, who has drawn panchnama of the scene of offence,
\ncollected sample earth and control earth from the place of offence,
\narrested the accused in presence of panchas and recovered clothes
\nworn by the accused which was stained with blood. During the course
\nof the investigation, the accused has shown his willingness to show
\nthe wooden log used for commission of the offence and on the basis of
\nthe willingness shown by the accused, he has  recovered the wooden
\nlog stained with blood from the place which was shown by the accused
\nin presence of panchas and drawn discovery panchnama as per Section
\n27 of the Evidence Act. He thereafter sent the muddamal clothes as
\nwell as the wooden log having blood stains to FSL for chemical
\nanalysis.\n<\/p>\n
2.4.\t\tOn
\nreceipt of the post mortem report as well as FSL report and as
\nsufficient incriminating evidence was found against the accused, he
\nfiled charge sheet against the accused in the Court of learned JMFC,
\nKarjan.\n<\/p>\n
2.5.\t\tAs
\nthe offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court
\nof Sessions, the learned JMFC, Karjan committed the case to the
\nSessions Court, Vadodara.\n<\/p>\n
2.6.\t\tThe
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara to whom the case was made
\nover for trial, framed the charge against the accused. The accused
\npleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried and
\nthereupon he was put to trial by the trial court in Sessions Case
\nNo.41 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
2.7.\n<\/p>\n
To prove the culpability of the accused, the prosecution has examined
\n14 witnesses consisting of the complainant ?  husband of the
\ndeceased, eye witnesses, panch witnesses and investigating officer
\nand relied upon their oral testimonies.\n<\/p>\n
2.8.\n<\/p>\n
To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has also
\nproduced a number of documents such as complaint, post-mortem report,
\nFSL report, discovery panchnama, etc., and relied upon the contents
\nthereof.\n<\/p>\n
2.9.\n<\/p>\n
After recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was
\nover, the trial Court explained to the accused the circumstances
\nappearing against him and recorded his further statement under
\nSection 313 of the Code. In his further statement, the accused denied
\nthe case of the prosecution in its entirety. He has stated that a
\nfalse and concocted case has been filed against him.  However, he has
\nneither led any evidence nor did he examine any witness in support of
\nhis defence.\n<\/p>\n
2.10.\t\tOn appreciation,
\nevaluation, analysis and scrutiny of the evidence on record, the
\ntrial Court came to the conclusion that Nankiben has died a homicidal
\ndeath and the accused is the author of the injuries caused to the
\ndeceased with wooden log. Therefore the prosecution has successfully
\nestablished the complicity of the accused for commission of murder of
\nNankiben. On the aforesaid finding, the trial court convicted the
\naccused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 135 of the
\nBP Act and he has  been sentenced accordingly to which reference is
\nmade in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment, which has given rise
\nto instant appeal at the instance of original accused.\n<\/p>\n
3. Ms. Sadhna Sagar,
\nlearned advocate for the accused appointed by the Legal Aid Committee
\nfor the accused, has fairly conceded that deceased Nankiben has died
\na homicidal death. She has also conceded that the accused is the
\nauthor of the injuries caused to the deceased. She has contended that
\nthere is inconsistency in the testimonies of eye witnesses and the
\nmedical evidence. Eye witnesses say that only a single blow was given
\nby the accused whereas medical evidence shows five injuries on the
\ndead body of Nankiben. According to her only one blow was given on
\nthe head of Nankiben by the accused and therefore the offence does
\nnot amount to murder but it amounts to culpable homicide not
\namounting to murder. According to her, there was no intention on the
\npart of the accused to commit murder of Nankiben who is his
\nsister-in-law. The incident had taken place on a trifle and petty
\nmatter. The accused demanded money which Nankiben refused to lend and
\ntherefore the accused suddenly got excited and inflicted a single
\nblow with a wooden log and thereafter he ran away and he has not
\nacted  cruelly or in an unusual manner and has also not taken undue
\nadvantage. Therefore, offence is not murder but it is culpable
\nhomicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I
\nor II IPC.  The accused has undergone imprisonment of seven years and
\nsince the offence committed by the accused is under Section 304 Part
\nI or II IPC, the custodial sentence undergone by him may be treated
\nas substantive sentence. She therefore  urged to allow the appeal
\npartly qua sentence only and appropriate order in this connection may
\nbe passed.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tPer
\ncontra,  Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned
\nAPP for the respondent – State of Gujarat has submitted that there is
\nno infirmity or illegality committed by the trial Court in recording
\nthe conviction and sentence against the accused. Therefore, no
\ninterference is called for in the impugned judgment and order.
\nAccording to him, the accused has committed the crime in a cruel and
\nunusual manner and he has taken undue advantage of  the situation.
\nThe deceased had not given sudden provocation. The deceased simply
\nrefused to lend money and thereupon the accused has inflicted
\nmultiple injuries on the face, head and chest of the deceased.
\nTherefore, it is a clearcut case of murder and not an offence of
\nculpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, complicity of
\nthe accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC has been duly
\nproved. According to him, there are eye witnesses to the incident who
\nhave no reason to falsely rope in the accused in the crime.
\nTherefore, he urged to dismiss the appeal by confirming the judgment
\nand order of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused by
\nthe trial court.\n<\/p>\n
5. This Court has
\nconsidered the submissions advanced by Ms. Sadhna Sagar, learned
\nadvocate for the accused and Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned APP for the
\nrespondent ?  State of Gujarat and perused the impugned judgment and
\norder. This Court has undertaken a complete and comprehensive
\nappreciation of all vital features of the case and the entire
\nevidence on record, which is read and re-read by the learned
\nadvocates of the parties with reference to broad and reasonable
\nprobabilities of the case. This Court has examined the entire
\nevidence on record for itself independently of the learned Judge of
\nthe trial Court and considered the arguments advanced on behalf of
\nthe accused and infirmities pressed, scrupulously with a view to find
\nout as to whether the trial Court has rightly recorded the order of
\nconviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
6. There is no dispute
\nto the fact that the deceased has died a homicidal death. Even the
\nlearned advocate for the accused has not raised any dispute in this
\nregard. To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined P.W.11, Dr.
\nVijaysinh Ganpatsinhji Rathod, Tutor, SSG Hospital, Vadodara, who
\nperformed post mortem examination on the dead body of Nankiben, at
\nEx.26.  The post mortem report is at Ex.27.\n<\/p>\n
6.1. On a conjoint
\nreading of the oral testimony of P.W.11, Dr. Vijaysinh Ganpatsinhji
\nRathod, Ex.26 and the post mortem report at Ex.27, it is seen that
\nthere were five external injuries and five internal injuries on the
\ndead body of Nankiben which were on vital parts of the body i.e.,
\nhead, face and chest. The deceased died due to cranio-cerebral
\ntrauma and its complications.\n<\/p>\n
6.2.\t\tIn view of the
\naforesaid evidence, according to us, the prosecution has established
\nthat Nankiben has died a homicidal death. We are, therefore, of the
\nopinion that the trial court has rightly held that Nankiben has died
\na homicidal death and, therefore, we confirm the said finding and
\nhold that the deceased has died a homicidal death.\n<\/p>\n
7. Now the next question
\nis whether the accused is the author of injuries caused to deceased
\nNankiben.\n<\/p>\n
7.1.\t\tIt is not disputed
\nby Ms. Sadhna Sagar, learned advocate for the accused that the
\naccused has inflicted one blow with a wooden log to the deceased.
\nHowever, for our satisfaction, we have examined the evidence
\nindependently.\n<\/p>\n
7.2.\t\tTo prove this
\nfact, the prosecution has examined and relied upon the oral testimony
\nof P.W.1, Budhabhai Ramanbhai Vasava, husband of deceased Nankiben at
\nEx.7. He has testified that he was informed by Kalidas that Gordhan
\ni.e., the accused has inflicted injury to Nanki and ran away. He
\ntherefore went there and saw his wife Nankiben lying in the field and
\nher head was burst and she was serious and therefore she was shifted
\nin a bullock cart and thereafter shifted her to SSG Hospital in a
\njeep.\n<\/p>\n
7.3.\t\tThe prosecution
\nthereafter has examined P.W.2, Kantibhai A. Patel, who is the owner
\nof the agricultural field in whose field the said offence has taken
\nplace, at Ex.8. He was informed by Kalidas about the incident.\n<\/p>\n
7.4.\t\tBoth the above
\nwitnesses were cross-examined by the learned advocate for the accused
\nbut nothing substantial could be brought out which would impeach the
\ncredibility of their evidence.\n<\/p>\n
7.5.\t\tThereafter the
\nprosecution has examined and relied upon the evidence of P.W.3,
\nKailashben Manubhai Vasava, Ex.11. She is projected as an eye
\nwitness. She has inter alia testified that at the time of incident
\nshe was plucking cotton from the field. Nankiben was feeding her
\nchild. At that time Gordhan came there and inflicted injury on the
\nhead of Nankiben with a wooden log. Nankiben fell down in the field
\nand the accused ran away.\n<\/p>\n
7.6.\t\tThe prosecution
\nhas thereafter examined and relied upon the oral testimony of P.W.4,
\nKailasben Mangalbhai Vasava, Ex.12. She is also projected as an eye
\nwitness. She has deposed in terms of the testimony of P.W.3,
\nKailasben Manubhai Vasava. She has also deposed that on the day of
\nthe incident Nankiben was in the field along with her and she was
\nfeeding her child. At that time the accused came there and demanded
\nmoney from her  but as she had no money the accused has inflicted
\nblow with a wooden log on her head.\n<\/p>\n
7.7.\t\tThe prosecution
\nhas thereafter examined P.W.5, Kalidasbhai Chhotabhai Baria, who has
\ninformed about the incident to P.W.1, husband of the deceased, at
\nEx.13. He was also working at the field of Kantibhai Patel on the day
\nof the incident. Nankiben was also working in the field and she was
\nfeeding her child. He saw the accused running away after beating
\nNankiben from a distance.\n<\/p>\n
7.8.\t\tP.W. 3, P.W.4, and
\nP.W.5 have been cross-examined at length by the learned advocate for
\nthe accused. However, nothing substantial could be brought out which
\nwould impeach the credibility of their evidence. There is no reason
\nto disbelieve the say of the eye witnesses and there is no reason for
\nthem to falsely rope the accused in the crime.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tIt is settled
\nposition of law that evidence of solitary eye witness is sufficient
\nto base order of conviction. In this connection, it would be
\nappropriate to refer to the following two decisions of the Supreme
\nCourt:\n<\/p>\n
8.1.\t\tIn the case of
\n Kunju Alias Balachandran v\/s. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 2 SCC
\n151, the Supreme Court has held that conviction on the basis of
\nthe testimony of the sole eyewitness is permissible where the
\ntestimony of sole eyewitness was not shaken although he was
\ncross-examined at length and the same was corroborated by the
\nevidence of another witness who did not support the prosecution
\nversion in toto.\n<\/p>\n
8.2.\t\tIn the case of
\n Krishna Mochi And Others v\/s. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81,
\nthe Supreme Court has held that credible evidence of even a solitary
\nwitness can form the basis of conviction.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tThe prosecution has
\nsuccessfully established the complicity of the accused in commission
\nof offence of murder of deceased Nankiben from the testimonies of the
\nabove witnesses. There is one more piece of evidence i.e., discovery
\npanchnama of the wooden log used by the accused at the time of
\ncommission of the offence at the instance of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
9.1.\t\tIn this connection
\nthe prosecution has examined and relied upon the oral testimony of
\nP.W.8, Sajanbhai Rudabhai Bharwad, Ex.20. He is a panch  to the
\ndiscovery panchnama i.e., wooden log which was recovered at the
\ninstance of the accused. He has  supported the prosecution case and
\nhas narrated the incident as per the panchnama Ex.21. By this
\npanchnama blood stained wooden log was recovered at the instance of
\nthe accused.\n<\/p>\n
9.2.\t\tThe prosecution
\nhas examined and relied upon P.W.12, Pravinbhai Chhaganbhai Parmar,
\nEx.29. He is a panch witness to the panchnama of recovery of clothes
\nof the accused. He has testified that in his presence the clothes of
\nthe accused were recovered which were having blood stains. The said
\npanchnama is at Ex.30.\n<\/p>\n
9.3.\t\tFrom the above
\nevidence of two panch witnesses it is clear that the wooden log  used
\nin commission of the offence which was stained with blood was
\nrecovered at the instance of the accused as well as clothes put on by
\nthe accused at the relevant time stained with blood were also
\nrecovered.\n<\/p>\n
9.4.\t\tIn this
\nconnection, it would be appropriate to refer to FSL report which is
\non record at Ex.40. A perusal of the said report it is clear that on
\nall the articles i.e., on the control earth, sari and petticoat of
\nthe deceased Nankiben, pant of the accused and wooden log, all were
\nstained with blood of A group  and the blood group of deceased
\nNankiben was of A group and therefore there is no reason to
\ndisbelieve that the accused has with the wooden log inflicted
\ninjuries on the vital parts of the  deceased. Finding of blood of A
\ngroup on the above referred to articles as well as the deceased was
\nhaving blood group A is sufficient to establish that the accused had
\nwith a wooden log inflicted injuries on vital parts of the deceased.
\nTherefore on all the above referred articles blood of A group was
\nfound. Therefore from the aforesaid evidence also it is duly
\nestablished that the accused is the author of the injuries caused to
\nthe deceased.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tNow the next
\nquestion which is required to be answered by us is whether the
\noffence committed by the accused falls within the definition of
\nmurder or it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.\n<\/p>\n
10.1.\tOn careful
\nconsideration of the overall evidence, it is clear that the deceased
\nhas not provoked the accused. The deceased has simply refused to lend
\nmoney to him. It has also come in evidence that the accused was
\ndemanding money from the deceased frequently. The accused has also
\ndemanded money prior to three days from the deceased but she refused
\nto lend the same. Moreover,  on the previous day also there was
\nquarrel between the deceased and the accused and therefore the
\naccused has inflicted injuries on the vital parts of the deceased.
\nTherefore, the offence committed by he accused does not fall within
\nany of the exceptions and it is a clearcut case of murder and the
\naccused was minded to kill her as she refused to lend money to him
\nand therefore the submission of Ms. Sadhna Sagar that the offence
\ncommitted by the accused is not an offence of murder but it amounts
\nto culpable homicide not amounting to murder, cannot be accepted and
\ndeserves to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThere is oral
\ntestimony of the eye witnesses who saw the accused giving fatal blows
\n with the wooden log to the deceased. There is evidence of panch
\nwitnesses of the panchnama with respect to recovery of  clothes as
\nwell as wooden log. Though the evidence of eye witnesses do not
\nrequire corroboration, the prosecution has produced corroborative
\npiece of evidence in the form of discovery and recovery panchnama of
\nweapon used by the accused as well as the recovery of clothes put on
\nby the accused and the deceased at the relevant time and the FSL
\nreport in terms proves that the accused has committed the offence of
\nmurder of Nankiben.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tIn view of the
\nclinching and satisfactory evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
\ncomplicity of the accused in commission of the offence of murder of
\nNankiben has been duly established. Suffice it to say that the trial
\nCourt has given cogent and convincing reason for convicting the
\naccused for commission of offences under Section 302 IPC and Section
\n135 BP Act and Ms. Sadhna Sagar, learned advocate for the accused
\ncould not dislodge the said reasons given by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tWe find ourselves
\nin complete agreement with the finding, ultimate conclusion and the
\nresultant order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial
\nCourt, as according to us, no other finding, conclusion and order, is
\npossible except the one reached by the trial Court, which is required
\nto be affirmed by us.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tSeen in the above
\ncontext, there is no reason or justifiable ground to interfere with
\nthe impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by
\nthe trial Court, and as the appeal lacks merit, it deserves to be
\ndismissed by confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tFor the foregoing
\nreasons, the appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed.
\nResultantly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
\n14.9.2000 rendered in Sessions Case No.41 of 2000 by the learned
\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, is hereby confirmed and
\nmaintained.\n<\/p>\n
(A.M.Kapadia,J.)<\/p>\n
(Z.K.Saiyed,J.)<\/p>\n
…\n<\/p>\n
(karan)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Gordhanbhai vs State on 6 August, 2008 Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/916\/2000 24\/ 24 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 916 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGordhanbhai vs State on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gordhanbhai vs State on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-24T05:21:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gordhanbhai vs State on 6 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-24T05:21:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3353,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Gordhanbhai vs State on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-24T05:21:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gordhanbhai vs State on 6 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gordhanbhai vs State on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gordhanbhai vs State on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-24T05:21:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gordhanbhai vs State on 6 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-24T05:21:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008"},"wordCount":3353,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008","name":"Gordhanbhai vs State on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-24T05:21:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhanbhai-vs-state-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gordhanbhai vs State on 6 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131308","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=131308"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131308\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}