{"id":175410,"date":"2010-01-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2"},"modified":"2017-01-17T00:19:08","modified_gmt":"2017-01-16T18:49:08","slug":"appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Appearance vs Unknown on 11 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Appearance vs Unknown on 11 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/1755\/2004\t 19\/ 21\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. 1755 of 2004\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE\n \n\n  \nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n \n\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\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPANA\nHARA BHATI & 3 \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nTHE\nSTATE OF GUJARAT \n\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nASHISH M DAGLI for\nAppellants. \nMR KL PANDYA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for\nOpponent-State \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.L.DAVE\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\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 11\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nappellants were accused before the City Sessions Court No.5,
\nAhmedabad, in Sessions Case No.41\/2003. They came to be tried for the
\noffences punishable under Section 302 r.w.section 34 or 114 of the
\nIndian Penal Code [ IPC  for short] and Section 135 of the Bombay
\nPolice Act [ BP Act  for short]. The trial Court, after
\nconsidering the evidence led by the prosecution, found that the
\ncharges were proved against the appellants-accused and recorded
\nconviction by judgment and order dated 21st
\nSeptember, 2004.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nprosecution case, in brief, is that the incident took place during
\nthe night falling between 27.9.2002 and 28.9.2002 at Gulbai Tekra in
\nAhmedabad, where four accused persons collectively assaulted deceased
\nVirabhai Savabhai Rathod with weapons like dharia, pipe, gupti and
\naxe. The deceased was sitting with his sister Premiben near a small
\ntemple located in the area, which is near the house of Premiben.
\nThere was a dispute between the accused side and the victim side on
\naccount of teasing of Goviben, daughter of victim Virabhai Savabhai
\nand, therefore, upon seeing the victim and Premiben, the four accused
\npersons rushed towards them with weapons in their hands. Premiben
\nasked the victim to run away and she also tried to escape. The victim
\nwas chased by the accused persons and was attacked near the house of
\nAmarabhai Ramabhai. Upon seeing the incident, Premiben raised shouts,
\nbut, in vain. She was scared and, therefore, she ran away from the
\nplace and reached Panjarapole area. Thereafter, she reached to the
\nhouse of her sister Daluben in a rickshaw, who stays at a place
\nnearby the place of the incident called Bhudarpura. There Premiben
\nnarrated the incident to her sister Daluben and thereafter they also
\ntold their sister Hariben about the incident and then all the three
\nwent to Navrangpura Police Chowky and informed the police. Therefore,
\nthe police accompanied them to the place of the incident, where from
\nthey took the deceased to V.S.Hospital and there FIR of Premiben was
\nrecorded. On the basis of that FIR, offence was registered and
\ninvestigated. During the course of investigation, the
\nappellants-accused came to be arrested on 1.10.2002. The charge sheet
\nwas filed against them in the Court of learned Metropolitan
\nMagistrate, who in turn, committed the case to the City Sessions
\nCourt, Ahmedabad, where Sessions Case No.41\/2003 came to be
\nregistered.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tCharge
\nwas framed against the accused persons at Exh.1. All the accused
\npersons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
3.1\t\tThe
\ntrial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution,
\ncame to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in
\nestablishing the charges levelled against the accused persons and,
\ntherefore, convicted them for the offences punishable under Section
\n302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 135 of the BP Act.\n<\/p>\n
3.2\t\tAfter
\nhearing the accused persons on the question of quantum of punishment,
\nthe trial Court sentenced all the four accused persons-appellants to
\nundergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500\/- each, in
\ndefault, to undergo one month’s R.I, for the offence punishable under
\nSection 302 read with Section 34 IPC; whereas for the offence
\npunishable under Section 135 of the BP Act, they were sentenced to
\nundergo imprisonment for seven days. Both the sentences were ordered
\nto run concurrently and the benefit of set off was ordered to be
\ngiven to the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tWe
\nhave heard learned advocate Mr.Dagli for the appellants and, learned
\nA.P.P. Mr.Pandya for the State.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.Dagli submitted that the prosecution case depends mainly
\non the evidence of Premiben. If her evidence is seen, it is full of
\nimprovements. The story narrated by her in respect of the incident is
\nimprobable. He submitted that although independent witnesses were
\navailable, they have not been examined as witnesses. The
\ninvestigation is not properly carried out. Although it has come in
\nevidence that there were bloodstains on the otta of temple, no
\nsamples were drawn there-from. He submitted that the conduct of eye
\nwitness Premiben is not natural. In the first instance, Mr.Dagli
\nsubmitted that she could not have been sitting at the place in the
\nwee hours of night with her brother all alone, as she has claimed. He
\nsubmitted that at that point of time, there were many residents
\naround and Premiben says that nobody came to their rescue. This is
\nnot a probable situation. Mr.Dagli submitted further that Premiben
\ninstead of going to police for help, goes to her sister’s house.
\nMr.Dagli submitted that it has come in her evidence that the FIR was
\nrecorded at about 3.00 A.M, which is much prior to the FIR which is
\nbrought on record. As such, the FIR recorded at 6.00 A.M  is
\nsubsequent and would cease to be an FIR and has, therefore, been
\nerroneously exhibited on record. The FIR, allegedly recorded at 3.00
\nA.M, has not been brought on record.\n<\/p>\n
5.1\t\tSimilarly,
\nMr.Dagli submitted that the weapons were seized on 28.9.2002, but,
\nthey were sent to F.S.L on 18.10.2002. Mr.Dagli submitted that the
\nprosecution has not led any evidence to show whether these weapons
\nwere lying there from 28.9.2002 to 18.10.2002 before being sent to
\nFSI and whether they remained there untempered. The witness does not
\ndescribe or attribute any specific injury to any of the assailants.
\nIf she had been really present, she could have done that also.
\nMr.Dagli, therefore, submitted that the trial Court solely relied on
\nthe evidence of Premiben and another witness Daluben, without looking
\nfor independent corroboration. In support of his submission, Mr.Dagli
\nrelied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joseph
\nvs. State of Kerala,<\/a> 2003(1) SCC 465, particularly
\nparagraphs 12 & 13.\n<\/p>\n
5.2
\nMr.Dagli submitted that arrest panchnama of the accused persons has
\nnot been brought on record by the prosecution, which shows lacuna in
\nthe evidence of prosecution. He submitted that the appeal may,
\ntherefore, be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tLearned
\nA.P.P. Mr.Pandya has opposed this appeal. According to him,  evidence
\nof Premiben is natural. Her conduct is natural and she was scared
\nand, therefore, a natural conduct cannot be expected from her, but,
\nher version gets corroboration from the medical evidence, so also the
\nevidence of Daluben and, therefore, the trial Court was justified in
\nrecording conviction of the appellants. Mr.Pandya submitted that
\nabsence of certain evidence would be significant only if there is
\nmaterial to abrogate the evidence which is not on record. In the
\ninstant case, no such material is shown by the defence to abrogate
\nthe evidence of Premiben and the medical evidence. The trial Court
\nwas, therefore, justified in recording the conviction and this Court
\nmay not interfere with the judgment impugned in the appeal, in
\nexercise of appellate jurisdiction. He, therefore, submitted that the
\nappeal may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tWe
\nhave examined the record and proceedings of the case in the context
\nof the rival side submissions.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.Dagli is right on his say that the prosecution case
\ndepends mainly on the evidence of Premiben. Premiben is the sister of
\nthe victim, who has deposed at Exh.14. In her evidence, she states
\nthat there was an altercation between his brother deceased Virabhai
\nand accused Ganesh and Kishan when the deceased inquired of the two
\nas to why had they teased the daughter of the deceased. The
\nneighbours somehow intervened and they were separated and both the
\nparties went home. On that very day, the witness says, she and her
\nbrother victim Virabhai were sitting on the otta of temple near her
\nhouse. At that time, accused No.1 Pana came with a dharia, accused
\nNo.2 Ganesh had a gupti, accused No.3 Kishan had an axe and accused
\nNo.4 Deva had a pipe. They all came running towards them. She,
\ntherefore, asked her brother to run away or they may kill him. She
\nalso tried to escape along with her brother. By the time they reached
\nnear the house of Amarabhai Ramabhai, a dharia blow was given by
\naccused No.1 on the occipital region of the head of deceased
\nVirabhai. Rest of the accused also joined accused No.1 and
\ncollectively assaulted the deceased indiscriminately. She, therefore,
\nraised cries. She then went to Panjarapole and from there she went to
\nBhudarpura at her sister’s place. From there, she along with her two
\nsisters went to Navrangpura Police Chowky and informed the police
\nthat her brother is killed. The police joined them and went to the
\nplace of incident, where they found the deceased lying dead.
\nThereafter the deceased was taken to V.S.Hospital. At the
\nV.S.Hospital, her FIR was recorded. She identified the dharia, axe,
\ngupti and pipe. She also identified the clothes of the deceased which
\nhe was wearing at the time of the incident. The witness also
\nidentified the accused persons by name before the Court. The witness
\nwas subjected to cross-examination where she admits that there were
\nsome police cases registered against the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
8.1\tDuring
\nthe cross-examination, it appears that, she has made certain
\nstatements as to the time of occurrence as well as other incidents.
\nIt emerges from her cross-examination that despite her raising cries
\nfor help, no one came and, therefore, she ran away. The questions are
\nput as to when her brother   victim came to her house and at what
\ntime they left. Whether she had any occasion in past to leave the
\nhouse at such odd hours at night and, she has replied those questions
\nappropriately. A question had also been put to her regarding the
\nrelationship between the victim and his wife, whether they were
\nstaying together or the victim had divorced her, because in her FIR
\nshe has stated that the deceased had divorced his wife. The questions
\nare put to know if her clothes were stained with blood or not and she
\nreplied that in the Police Van her brother’s head was not placed in
\nher lap. She was sitting near to him. She says that there was blood
\nspread in the Van where the dead body was kept. Then she says that as
\nshe was sitting beside her brother, her clothes were also stained
\nwith blood. She admits to have not stated certain aspects about the
\nincident, in detail, in the FIR. She denies a suggestion that she
\ngave a false complaint in consultation with her sister to settle the
\naccount with the accused persons on account of earlier quarrel.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe
\nnext important witness is Daluben Virabhai Marvadi examined at
\nExh.24. She is the sister of first informant staying at Bhudarpura.
\nAbout the incident, she says that Premiben came to her house at
\nBhudarpura at about 2.00 to 2.30 in the night and told her that their
\nbrother Virabhai has been done to death with dharia and gupti. The
\nwitness says that she also got scared and informed her sister Hariben
\nand all of them went to Navrangpura Police Chowky and informed the
\npolice that their brother has been done to death and the three
\nsisters may also be murdered and may be protected. Thereafter,
\nPremiben sat in police-van and witness Daluben and her sister Hariben
\nwent by rickshaw to the place of the incident and found the deceased
\nlying dead near the osari of house of Amarabhai Ramabhai. The
\ndeceased was lying with his face down and was bleeding profusely. The
\nwitness then says that while the daughter of the deceased was going
\nto purchase milk,  Ganesh had caught her hand, which had resulted
\ninto an altercation\/quarrel. In her cross-examination, the witness
\ndenies that she has stated in her police statement that her brother
\nhad divorced his wife Nathiben. She admits during her
\ncross-examination that none-else than Premiben told them  as to who
\nhad murdered the victim. She admits not to have stated in her police
\nstatement that Premiben told her that Virabhai has been done to death
\nwith dharia and gupti and they got frightened therefor and told
\nHariben about the same. She denies that her case is concocted after
\ndeliberation.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tAs
\nregards the medical evidence,we may note that Dr. Rohit Chimanlal
\nZaverivala, who had performed the post-mortem and is examined at
\nExh.16, says that the deceased had as may as 18 external injuries and
\n8 internal injuries. According to the Doctor, injuries found on the
\nperson of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of
\nnature to cause death. The Doctor has been cross-examined, but
\nnothing special emerges from his cross-examination except that injury
\nNo.1 was possible with any hard and blunt substance. He denies the
\nsuggestion that injury No.1 mentioned in column No. 17 in the
\npost-mortem note was possible by fall.\n<\/p>\n
10.1\t\tThe
\ninjuries are mainly chop wounds, contused lacerated wounds, multiple
\nabrasions and stab wounds.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tFrom
\nthese important pieces of evidence, what emerges is that, according
\nto the eye witness, assailants-appellants came to the victim and,
\ntherefore, he started running from the place and was hit for the
\nfirst time near the house of Amarabhai by dharia and then he was
\nassaulted upon indiscriminately by the accused persons with their
\nrespective weapons. The incident occurred at odd late night hours
\nwhen there would be no person around. Even cry for help by  first
\ninformant Premiben did not yield any result. It is true that in the
\nFIR, details of assault by different accused persons are not given,
\nbut, it would not be proper to expect a solitary lady eye witness to
\nclosely watch and remember the sequence of events, time, place and
\nmanner in which the incident had occurred. It has come in the
\nevidence of the first informant in terms that she cried for help and
\nwhen no one turned up, she got scared and ran away towards
\nPanjarapole and from there, she caught a rickshaw and went to
\nBhudarpura to her sister’s place. It is equally true that she has not
\ngiven full details in the FIR about the sequence of events, but, that
\nby itself would not discredit her version because the FIR is meant
\nmainly to initiate investigation and all details are not required to
\nbe stated in the FIR. Having examined the FIR, it cannot be said that
\nit is a cryptic FIR. There is no conflicting version emerging from
\nthe FIR as well as deposition which would render both or either of
\nthem unreasonable. The injuries found on the person of the deceased
\nwere multiple in nature which would speak volumes about the manner in
\nwhich the incident must have occurred and it is natural that a lady
\nwould get scared when no one responds to her cry for help, more so
\nwhen she belongs to that strata of society where there is less
\neducation and more poverty. What the eye witness has stated gets
\ncorroborated by the medical evidence. The injuries on the person of
\nthe deceased are certified to be ante-mortem and attributable to the
\nweapons allegedly used in the commission of crime by the accused
\npersons. Therefore, in our view, the version of the eye witness gets
\ncorroborative support from the medical evidence.\n<\/p>\n
11.1\t\tApart
\nfrom the above aspects, it is also worth a note that eye witness
\nPremiben had soon after the incident, run to her sister and told her
\nas to what had happened. That version is on the same line with her
\ndeposition which inculpates the four accused persons. The version
\nwhich is given by eye witness Premiben to her sister Daluben  is soon
\nafter the incident and while she was under shock or mental agony of
\nthe incident, she has given this version within a few minutes of the
\nincident and had no time to fabricate and concoct the story against
\nthe accused persons.  The principles of res gestae can  be applied,
\nwhich is incorporated in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, which
\nruns as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 6.\tRelevancy
\nof facts forming part of same transaction.- Facts which, though
\nnot in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part
\nof the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the
\nsame time and place or at different times and places.\n<\/p>\n
\tIllustration\n<\/p>\n
(a) to that Section is very apt, which also runs as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t (a)\tA
\nis accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or
\ndone by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly
\nbefore or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant
\nfact.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe
\nversion of the eye witness, therefore, gets support from the evidence
\nof Daluben as well.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tA
\nstrong contention was raised about the fact that the real FIR is not
\ncoming on record because as per the first informant it was recorded
\nat 3.00 A.M, whereas the FIR on record indicates that it was recorded
\nat 6.00 A.M. This, in our view, cannot be considered as a case where
\nearlier FIR is suppressed  by the prosecution. Consistently it has
\ncome on record that only one FIR is recorded. The confusion is
\nbecause of time aspect. In this context, if the evidence of eye
\nwitness is seen as a whole, an impression is created that she has no
\nsense of proportion as to time. At one stage she says that the
\nincident occurred at about 2.00 A.M. and at the another stage she
\nsays that the incident occurred at 10.30 to 11.00 P.M. Similarly, the
\neye witness has stated that the temple is located at a distance of
\nabout half-an-hour walk from her house. We can take judicial notice
\nof the fact that that cannot be true, as the area itself is not that
\nbig. Half-an-hour journey is sufficient to cover several kilometers,
\nwhich is not the case here.\n<\/p>\n
13.1\t\tIt
\nis also contended that the weapons were seized on 28.9.2002 and were
\nsent to FSL on 18.10.2002 and no evidence is led to indicate that
\nwhere the weapons were lying and whether they were safe and
\nuntampered. In this context, it may be recorded that the weapons were
\nseized under a panchnama and a seal was put. The weapons have been
\nsent to FSL for investigation and FSL has not found that slips were
\nbroken or tampered. Therefore, there is no likelihood of any
\nprejudice being caused to the accused because of the lack of evidence
\non custody of weapons between the date of seizure and sending them to
\nthe FSL.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIt
\nwas also contended that as per the prosecution case, bloodstains were
\nfound on the otta of the temple, but, sample of that blood had not
\nbeen drawn by the investigating agency. It is also contended that as
\nper the evidence of eye witness, the deceased was assaulted for the
\nfirst time near the house of Amarabhai and no attack was made near
\nthe temple. Therefore, it was contended by the defence that the
\nevidence of eye witness will be of no benefit to the prosecution. The
\nevidence, if considered as a whole, would go to show that the
\npossibility of there being no blood at the temple cannot be ruled
\nout. Even a suggestion is put by the defence, though denied by the
\nwitness, that red marks on the otta of the temple were because of
\nkumkum offered to the Deity. Apart from that, this slip or
\nmistake on the part of the Investigating Officer would not, in any
\nmanner, abrogate the effect of reliable evidence in the form of
\nevidence of eye witness Premiben, her sister Daluben or Doctor.
\nSimilar would be the situation when it is contended that the
\nbloodstained bedsheets and the bloodstained clothes of Premiben were
\nnot seized by the police. It would have been better if the I.O had
\nremained vigilant and collected these pieces of evidence, which would
\nhave lend more credence to the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIt
\nwas contended that Premiben does not disclose anything to any one
\nwhile going from the house of her sister at Bhudarpura to Navrangpura
\nPolice Chowky, which is not a natural conduct. This argument can be
\nmade only for recording that, as per the prosecution case, the first
\ninformant had already informed her sister Daluben immediately about
\nthe incident in detail, which implicates all the four accused
\npersons. Then there was no need for her to go on repeating as to how
\nthis incident had occurred.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tKeeping
\nall these aspects in the mind, if the evidence as a whole is seen,
\nthough it is in the form of evidence of a solitary eye witness
\nsupported by her sister and other evidence, the Court is of the view
\nthat the trial Court was justified in relying upon and accepting the
\nevidence of Premiben as truthful and in recording conviction.\n<\/p>\n
16.1\t\tMr.Dagli
\nhas relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joseph
\nvs. State of Kerala,<\/a> (2003)1 SCC 465, particularly paragraphs 12
\n& 13. That was the case where acquittal appeal was allowed by the
\nHigh Court and conviction was recorded and while appreciating that
\naspect, it was observed that in the facts of that case, it was found
\nthat there ought to have been blood at the place of the incident if
\nversion of the witness was accepted. But, there was none and in such
\neventuality, non-seizure of bloodstained clothes was considered as a
\nfactor in favour of the accused, who came to be acquitted by the
\ntrial Court and convicted by the first appellate Court. The decision,
\ntherefore, cannot help the appellants, as no prejudice is shown to
\nhave been caused because of non-seizure of bloodstained bedsheets or
\nbloodstained clothes of Premiben. If they were seized, it would have
\nlent greater credence to the evidence of Premiben. But, non-seizure
\nof it would not reduce the credibility of the witness once it is
\nfound that she is a truthful witness and her version is supported by
\nother evidence.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tFor
\nthe foregoing reasons, we are of the view that no interference is
\ncalled for in the view taken by the trial Court. The appeal must fail
\nand stands dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and
\nsentence rendered by the City Sessions Court No.5, Ahmedabad, on
\n21.09.2004, in Sessions Case No. 41\/2003, is hereby confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[A.L.Dave,J.]<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[Harsha
\nDevani,J.]<\/p>\n
(patel)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Appearance vs Unknown on 11 January, 2010 Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1755\/2004 19\/ 21 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1755 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================================= 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-175410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAppearance vs Unknown on 11 January, 2010 - 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\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appearance vs Unknown on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-16T18:49:08+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Appearance vs Unknown on 11 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T18:49:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":3719,\"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\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Appearance vs Unknown on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T18:49:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appearance vs Unknown on 11 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Appearance vs Unknown on 11 January, 2010 - 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\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appearance vs Unknown on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-16T18:49:08+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Appearance vs Unknown on 11 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T18:49:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2"},"wordCount":3719,"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\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2","name":"Appearance vs Unknown on 11 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T18:49:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-11-january-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appearance vs Unknown on 11 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/175410","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=175410"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175410\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}