{"id":143828,"date":"2008-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008"},"modified":"2019-01-25T22:51:33","modified_gmt":"2019-01-25T17:21:33","slug":"rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rajubhai vs State on 22 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Rajubhai vs State on 22 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: R.P.Dholakia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Patel,&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\/534\/1993\t 23\/ 23\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. 534 of 1993\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE\nD.N.PATEL \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\nRAJUBHAI\nAMRABAHI BHARWAD - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHIMANSU M PADHYA for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMS MS PANCHAL, APP for\nOpponent(s) : 1,                               MR BRAHMBHATT for the\noriginal\ncomplainant \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 R.P.DHOLAKIA\n\t\t\n\t\n\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 \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE DN PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA)<\/p>\n
This
\n\tappeal has been filed by the present appellant-original accused
\n\tbeing aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
\n\tconviction and sentence dated 22-4-1993 delivered by the learned
\n\tAdditional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No.44 of 1991
\n\twhereby he was ordered to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine
\n\tof Rs.2,000\/-, in default, to suffer one year SI for the offence
\n\tpunishable under Sec.302 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tshort facts of the prosecution case are that on 1-8-1989 at about
\n\t8.00 p.m., the victim, who regularly used to go to pan shop for
\n\tpurchasing tobacco pan and as usual, after purchasing tobacco pan,
\n\twas returning home. When he reached very near to the scene of
\n\toffence, three persons were sitting in the narrow passage and when
\n\tthe victim was passing, one person threw stone upon him and,
\n\ttherefore, he went towards them to inquire. On inquiry, the
\n\tappellant gave iron rod blows on the right and the left side of his
\n\thead as a result of which, the victim fell down. This incident was
\n\tseen by the owner of the pan shop and others and immediately his
\n\tbrother Sureshbhai was informed and, thereafter, the injured was
\n\ttaken to SSG Hospital, Vadodara, and complaint has been registered
\n\twith City Police Station, Vadodara, being Vadodara City Police
\n\tStation C.R.No.I-409 of 1989 initially for the offence punishable
\n\tunder Sec.325 of IPC  and police started investigation. During the
\n\tcourse of investigation, victim who received grievous head injuries
\n\tsuccumbed to the injuries and, therefore,  Police Constable on duty
\n\tat SSG Hospital telephonically sent vardhi to that effect to City
\n\tPolice Station and hence, Sec.302 of IPC was added in the above
\n\treferred offence and investigation has been taken over by PSI, Shri
\n\tS.G.Munia. He kept the investigation papers with the file and
\n\tstarted further investigation. He then went to SSG hospital, called
\n\tpanchas and prepared inquest panchnama on the dead body of the
\n\tdeceased and also filled up Marnotar form, prepared yadi for post
\n\tmortem and made arrangements to send dead body for performing post
\n\tmortem. He also went to the place of scene of offence and collected
\n\tmuddamal. Meanwhile, Police Constable collected clothes of the
\n\tdeceased and attached the same as a muddamal article under a
\n\tpanchnama. He also searched the accused and accused was arrested on
\n\t4th August, 1989 after preparing the arrest panchnama. He
\n\talso produced the iron rod which was seized as muddamal article
\n\tNo.1. Similarly, clothes of brother of the deceased were also seized
\n\tand attached them under a panchnama. He also collected death
\n\tcertificate, post mortem note etc., prepared forwarding letter for
\n\tsending the muddamal to FSL and on receiving the FSL report, same
\n\twas kept in investigation file.  At the end of investigation, charge
\n\tsheet was submitted against the appellant into the Court of learned
\n\tChief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tthe offence alleged against the accused was exclusively triable by
\n\tCourt of Sessions, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the
\n\tcase to the Court of Sessions at Vadodara where it was numbered as
\n\tSessions Case No.44 of 1991 and it was placed in the Court of
\n\tlearned Addl. Sessions Judge for disposal on merits.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tproduction of th accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
\n\tframed charge against the accused. The charge was read over and
\n\texplained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the
\n\tcharge and prayed for trial.\n<\/p>\n
\tTo prove the charge
\n\tagainst the accused, prosecution examined in all six witnesses and
\n\talso  produced and relied on several documentary evidences.
\n\tThereafter, on submission of closing purshis by the prosecution,
\n\tlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, recorded further
\n\tstatement of the accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. qua incriminating
\n\tevidence. Thereafter, after hearing the learned counsel appearing
\n\tfor the respective parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge
\n\tdelivered the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as
\n\tmentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, which is  giving
\n\trise to prefer the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore proceeding
\n\tfurther, it is required to be noted that present appellant remained
\n\tabsconding from 14-10-1998 to 3-1-2008 i.e. for a considerable
\n\tperiod of 3369 days that too also from the jail. During the period
\n\tthe appellant was absconding, this appeal has not been proceeded
\n\twith. However, after his arrest in the month of January, 2008, this
\n\tappeal was placed before this Court in view of the order passed by
\n\tHon’ble the Acting Chief Justice on 8-8-2008.\n<\/p>\n
\tToday we have heard
\n\tlearned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Himansu M.Padhya, learned APP,
\n\tMs.M.S.Panchal for the opponent-State as well as learned counsel for
\n\tthe original complainant, Mr.Brahmbhatt.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Padhya has
\n\tvehemently argued that  it was not a pre-planned murder but was a
\n\tresultant effect of a sudden provocation. According to him,  it is
\n\ta case of single blow and, therefore, case would not fall under
\n\tSec.302 of IPC but under Sec.304 Part II. It is also argued that out
\n\tof two witnesses, one witness Rajubhai Kalmal Dariyani is not a
\n\twitness of incident. It is further argued that FIR does not disclose
\n\tthe name of the appellant but only his community name has been
\n\tmentioned. There are material contradictions between oral evidence
\n\tof eye witnesses and evidence of medical witness and, therefore,
\n\tbenefit should go to the accused. It is lastly argued that the
\n\tappellant is a young person having responsibility to maintain his
\n\twife and two minor children and, therefore, some sympathy be shown
\n\ttowards him.  He has also relied upon case reported in 2006(1)
\n\tGLHEL-SC 39020 equivalent to 2007(3)SC 119; 2008 Cr.L.R. (Guj.) 109
\n\tand 2007 AIR SCW 6982.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned APP,
\n\tMs.M.S.Panchal has vehemently objected by contending that it is a
\n\tclear cut case of murder and court below has rightly convicted the
\n\taccused for the offence under Sec.302 of IPC and, therefore,
\n\tquestion of treating the case under Sec.304 Part II does not arise
\n\tin this case. This is more particularly so since intention of the
\n\taccused was fully established  as he was having deadly weapon in his
\n\thand and he selected vital part of the body of the deceased for
\n\tinflicting blows i.e. head and hence, according to her, it is not a
\n\tcase of single blow but infliction of various blows on the victim
\n\tresulting into skull fractures and, therefore also, case should not
\n\tbe considered under Sec.304 Part II. Medical evidence supports the
\n\tsay of the prosecution and merely name of the appellant has not been
\n\treflected in the FIR, the person cannot be absolved from serious
\n\toffence.  It is also argued that complaint has been given by the
\n\treal brother of the victim, who is not an eye witness but he has
\n\tbeen informed by an eye witness and, therefore, immediately he came
\n\tto the scene of offence. When a person especially the real brother
\n\tis  in serious injured condition, the primary duty of concerned
\n\tperson would be to take the injured in the hospital for giving him
\n\tbetter treatment and hence, the victim was taken to SSG Hospital and
\n\tmeanwhile, complaint has been lodged by his brother. Therefore,
\n\tcomplaint has been filed at the earliest opportunity. Since the
\n\tcomplainant was not an eye witness, the question of reflecting the
\n\tname of the appellant and other details in the complaint is out of
\n\tquestion, however the facts which he was kept informed have been
\n\tnarrated in the complaint. Therefore, according to her, complaint
\n\tdiscloses the name and community name of the appellant. In this
\n\tregard, she took us through FIR Ex.15 and argued that name of the
\n\taccused has been mentioned as Raju Bharwad armed with iron rod.
\n\tTherefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on
\n\tthis aspect is contrary to the evidence on record.  It is submitted
\n\tthat a young person has lost his life. His only fault was that he
\n\twent for purchasing tobacco pan and while returning, the accused
\n\tnumbering three were sitting on the side and one of them i.e. the
\n\tappellant inflicted iron rod blows on head and various parts of the
\n\tbody of the deceased  resulting into offence under Sec.302. It is
\n\ttherefore submitted that it is not a single blow and, therefore, no
\n\tsympathy is required to be shown towards the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the
\n\tcomplainant, Mr.Brahmbhatt has adopted the arguments advanced by
\n\tlearned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have gone through
\n\toral as well as documentary evidence shown to us by the learned
\n\tcounsel for the respective parties keeping in mind the law laid down
\n\tby the Apex Court in the aforesaid reported judgments relied on by
\n\tthe learned counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tHere in this case, the
\n\tincident is not in dispute. Name of the assailant has been disclosed
\n\tat the earliest opportunity and that too in FIR along with his name
\n\tand surname. Initially the complaint has been registered for the
\n\toffence under Sec.325 of IPC and during the course of treatment, as
\n\tthe victim succumbed to the injuries, Sec.302 of IPC was added and
\n\tinvestigation to that effect has been carried out by the
\n\tinvestigating agency.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor proving the guilt
\n\tagainst the accused, the prosecution has examined an important eye
\n\twitness namely, Rajubhai Kamlal Dariyani, P.W.2, Ex.16. He is an
\n\tindependent eye witness, who has nothing to do either with the
\n\tappellant or the deceased. He has categorically deposed that he is
\n\thaving his pan shop along with some sundry items in the name of
\n\tKrishna Pan and Provision Shop. This pan shop which is situated in
\n\tSukhmani Society is run by him as well as his father. He has further
\n\tdeposed that in the night of the incident, his father went to his
\n\thouse while he was in the pan shop. He has further deposed that the
\n\tincident has taken place on 1-8-1989 at about 8.00 p.m. while he was
\n\tin his pan shop. He has also deposed that he knows the deceased who
\n\tdaily used to come to his pan shop for purchasing masala. He has
\n\tfurther deposed that during the incident also, he came for masala to
\n\this pan galla. After taking the same, when he was going towards his
\n\thouse, three persons namely, Gagjibhai, Bagho and Raju Bharwad were
\n\tsitting  on the side of the road. Of them, one has thrown stone on
\n\tGopal and, therefore, his attention was drawn towards the place of
\n\tincident and he saw that the appellant was inflicting injuries on
\n\tthe victim  with iron rod although there was no instigation from the
\n\tvictim. Thereafter, he also went and saw Raju, who was armed with
\n\tiron bar, giving  iron bar blows on Gopal’s head and ears as a
\n\tresult of which, Gopal fell down. He has further deposed that
\n\timmediately he went to the house of Gopal and informed his brother.
\n\tThereafter, his brother Suresh came to the scene of offence and
\n\tSuresh called a rickshaw in which he was taken to SSG Hospital for
\n\ttreatment where during the course of treatment, he succumbed to the
\n\tinjuries. He also identified the accused in the Court categorically
\n\tdeposing that he is Raju Bharwad and the person who inflicted iron
\n\tbar blows on the head of deceased. He also identified the muddamal
\n\tarticle No.1 iron bar. In his cross examination, a question was
\n\tasked by the learned counsel for the accused as to whether he was
\n\tsitting in the pan shop when the incident occurred and also whether
\n\the was facing towards east. Thereafter, a question on the basis of
\n\tdenial was asked that while coming out from the shop, he had not
\n\tgone to the scene of offence. The last question was that he had not
\n\tseen the incident and just to help the prosecution, he is giving
\n\tfalse evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere was no cross
\n\texamination on material points regarding the incident, role played
\n\tby the accused and other aspects. Not a single question of that
\n\tnature was asked by the learned counsel for the respondents.  In
\n\tshort, his evidence remained practically unchallenged.\n<\/p>\n
\tTo get more support,
\n\tprosecution has also examined one more witness i.e. Pravin Mulchand
\n\tKotak, P.W.3, Ex.23. He is the person who is also having his pan
\n\tshop in the corner of Rukmani Society known as Vishal Pan Corner. He
\n\thas categorically deposed that he knows Gopalbhai who used to come
\n\tto his shop and or the shop of the P.W.2 for purchasing pan. He has
\n\tnarrated the incident in detail in para 2 of his evidence which
\n\tfully supports the evidence which has been given by the eye witness,
\n\tP.W.2 and, therefore, we are not reproducing the same. In short, he
\n\thas supported the say of the prosecution in toto. He also identified
\n\tthe accused in the Court with his name as Raju Bharwad and deposed
\n\tthat at the time of incident, he was having iron bar in his hand and
\n\twith that bar he has given blows on the head and ear of the victim
\n\tas a result of that, Gopal fell down and became unconscious. At the
\n\tcost of repetition, we may say that again there is no
\n\tcross-examination practically on the part of the learned counsel for
\n\tthe accused  except the standard questions that his face was towards
\n\teast and then denial that he has not seen the incident and was
\n\tgiving false evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn short, the
\n\tprosecution is able to prove the guilt against the accused appellant
\n\t by way of evidence of two independent eye witnesses, who have given
\n\tdetailed account regarding the incident in question which proved
\n\tbeyond reasonable doubt that three persons were sitting on the
\n\tnarrow passage and out of which, one (the appellant) has thrown
\n\tstone upon Gopal and thereafter, even though there was no
\n\tinstigation from Gopal, the appellant got up and gave iron bar blows
\n\ton the head of Gopal which resulted into offence under Sec.302. The
\n\taccused has been identified by both the witnesses with name and
\n\tsurname together with his role and nothing contrary has come out in
\n\ttheir cross-examination. At the cost of repetition, we say that
\n\tthere is no cross-examination on material point or practically on
\n\tany point except denial.  Even iron rod is also identified by the
\n\twitnesses. Except the afore referred eye witnesses, prosecution has
\n\tnot examined other eye witness.\n<\/p>\n
\tTo substantiate the
\n\tcase further, prosecution has Sureshbhai Khushaldas Punjabi, P.W.1,
\n\tEx.14, who is the brother of the deceased and who, admittedly, as
\n\tper the say of the prosecution,  is not a witness of incident. He
\n\treached the scene of offence after the incident. First he took his
\n\tinjured brother to SSG Hospital for treatment and immediately at the
\n\tearliest opportunity gave the FIR with Vadodara City Police Station
\n\tand the offence was registered under Sec.325 of IPC only. Through
\n\thim, prosecution has proved FIR Ex.15. Therefore, we are unable to
\n\taccept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
\n\tappellant that no name of the accused has been shown in the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs far as other aspects
\n\tof the matter are concerned, there are material evidence  as well as
\n\tmedical evidence i.e. evidence of Dr.Rakesh  Narendranath Tandon,
\n\tP.W.5 at Ex.25. He has deposed that on 3-8-1989, he received a dead
\n\tbody of the deceased Gopaldas Khushaldas Punjabi  from
\n\tMr.S.G.Muniya, PI of City Police Station, Vadodara, with yadi. He
\n\thas further deposed that he started post mortem on the dead body of
\n\tthe deceased at 6.00 p.m. and completed at 6.45 p.m. He also
\n\tnarrated the injury in para 1 of his deposition itself stating that
\n\tthere are six injuries out of which, three injuries were on the head
\n\tand ear of the deceased. He has deposed the size of the injuries as
\n\twell as corresponding injuries also. According to him, there were
\n\ttwo fractures on right and left side skull of the deceased and all
\n\tthose injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
\n\tof nature. Through him, prosecution has proved the injury
\n\tcertificate Ex.11. Post mortem note is also on record at running
\n\tpage 58 wherein the doctor has categorically deposed that  cause of
\n\tdeath is due to chronic cerebral  damage following head injury.
\n\tSame has been narrated in column No.23 of the post mortem note along
\n\twith external marks of injuries in column No.17 and corresponding
\n\tinjuries in column No.21 together with sketch of the fractured
\n\tskull. All these have been proved through the evidence of doctor and
\n\tnothing contrary has come out from the cross-examination so as to
\n\tturtle his evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe prosecution has
\n\talso examined panchas for proving  various panchnamas including the
\n\tpanchnama of scene of offence, arrest panchnama of the accused and
\n\tpanchnama of seizure of clothes of the deceased produced by Police
\n\tConstable and also the recovery panchnama of the muddamal
\n\tarticle-iron rod.\n<\/p>\n
\tOver and above, the
\n\tprosecution has also examined Investigating Officer, Shri
\n\tS.G.Muniya, P.W.6, Ex.26. He has given the account  of investigation
\n\tin toto and also referred all panchnama i.e. panchnama of scene of
\n\toffence Ex.9, panchnama of seizure of clothes of the deceased,
\n\treceipt of handing over dead body of the deceased to his relatives
\n\tEx.28, copy of application for adding Sec.302 of IPC Ex.29 and also
\n\tpanchnama of muddamal iron rod Ex.20.\n<\/p>\n
\tRecord shows that there
\n\tis no cross examination on the part of learned counsel for the
\n\taccused except the question that the accused had not produced the
\n\tmuddamal iron rod and though there is no evidence to connect the
\n\taccused with the crime in question, he has been falsely implicated.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn short, prosecution
\n\tis able to prove the guilt against the accused  beyond reasonable
\n\tdoubt. We have minutely gone through oral as well as documentary
\n\tevidence on record which connect the accused with the crime. Facts
\n\treveal that the victim, who was simply going towards his house after
\n\ttaking pan from the pan shop and though no instigation was given by
\n\thim, the appellant got up with iron rod and inflicted various blows
\n\twith it on the head of the deceased more particularly on right side
\n\tof skull as well as ear and other parts resulting into multiple
\n\tfractures on both the sides of head and  ultimately resulting into
\n\toffence under Sec.302 of IPC and, therefore, the theory putforward
\n\tby the learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case of single
\n\tblow cannot be accepted by this Court merely on the basis of
\n\tevidence of Dr.Rakesh, who has categorically deposed seven injuries
\n\ton the body of the deceased including six injuries which are on
\n\tvital part of the body i.e. head. Even otherwise, his evidence has
\n\tremained unchallenged as nothing contrary has come from the evidence
\n\tof doctor.\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, looking to the
\n\tevidence collected by the prosecution especially of P.Ws.2 and 3 to
\n\tbe read with medical evidence as well as post mortem note, suffice
\n\tit to say that injuries caused by the appellant on vital part of the
\n\tbody of the   deceased, as per medical evidence, would be sufficient
\n\tin the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. In
\n\tview of this medical evidence and the injuries suffered by the
\n\tdeceased, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
\n\tappellant that there was no intention to cause the murder of  the
\n\tdeceased and therefore his case is covered by Sec.304 Part II of IPC
\n\tis not accepted by this Court looking to Sec.300 clause thirdly of
\n\tIPC.  As per this section and especially of clause thirdly, if the
\n\tintention is to cause an injury upon the deceased then, the case is
\n\tcovered by the definition given under Sec.300 and is not falling
\n\twithin exception. Otherwise also, looking to the  evidence, no
\n\texceptional circumstances were present so as to indicate the
\n\texistence of a grave and sudden provocation by the deceased and
\n\thence, the appellant is not entitled to any benefit of dilution of
\n\tan offence from Sec.302 of IPC to Sec.304 Part II of IPC. In this
\n\tregard, reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
\n\tin the case of State of U.P. Vs. Virendra Prasad reported in 2004
\n\tS.C. 1517 more particularly paragraphs 7, 14 and 15.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the above,
\n\tthe appellant would not be entitled to any benefit of the judgments
\n\trelied upon by his counsel.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom
\n\tthe aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the case
\n\tagainst the accused has been proved by the prosecution beyond
\n\treasonable doubt and hence, the impugned judgment and order of
\n\tconviction and sentence as delivered by the court below do not
\n\trequire any interference. The appeal therefore requires to be
\n\tdismissed.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the above, the appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
[R.P.DHOLAKIA,J.]<\/p>\n
[D.N.PATEL,J.]<\/p>\n
radhan<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Rajubhai vs State on 22 September, 2008 Author: R.P.Dholakia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Patel,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/534\/1993 23\/ 23 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 534 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.PATEL ========================================================= 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-143828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajubhai vs State on 22 September, 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\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajubhai vs State on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-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=\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-25T17:21:33+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajubhai vs State on 22 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-25T17:21:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3494,\"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\\\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Rajubhai vs State on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-25T17:21:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajubhai vs State on 22 September, 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":"Rajubhai vs State on 22 September, 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\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajubhai vs State on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-25T17:21:33+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajubhai vs State on 22 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-25T17:21:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008"},"wordCount":3494,"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\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008","name":"Rajubhai vs State on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-25T17:21:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajubhai-vs-state-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajubhai vs State on 22 September, 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\/143828","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=143828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}