{"id":185589,"date":"2008-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-07-24T02:51:20","modified_gmt":"2018-07-23T21:21:20","slug":"jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Jagdishbhai vs State on 4 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Jagdishbhai vs State on 4 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\/51\/2001\t 21\/ 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. 51 of 2001\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA  \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\nJAGDISHBHAI\nSANKALCHAND - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \n \n \n\n\n \n\nMS SADHANA\nSAGAR appointed by Legal Aid Committee for Appellant \nMR MUKESH\nPATEL APP for Respondent(s) :\n1, \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 \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 Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 04\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \n\t\t\t\t\tORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)<\/p>\n
1.\tChallenge
\nin instant appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
\n(‘the Code’ for short) is to the correctness of the judgment and
\norder dated 16.10.2000 rendered in Sessions Case No.148 of 2000 by
\nthe learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, City Sessions
\nCourt, Ahmedabad, by which appellant\/original accused No.1 (‘A-1’ for
\nshort) has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section
\n302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 135 (1) of
\nthe Bombay Police Act (‘BP Act’ for short) and sentenced to
\nimprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000\/- i.d., simple
\nimprisonment for three month for commission of the offence under
\nSection 302 IPC and imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.200\/-
\ni.d., simple imprisonment for fifteen days for commission of the
\noffence under Section 135 (1) BP Act. Both the sentences were
\nordered to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
It may be noted that so far as original accused No.2 (A-2) is
\nconcerned, she has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 302
\nread with Section 34 IPC by giving benefit of doubt. However, she has
\nbeen convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to
\nfine of Rs.1,000\/- i.d., imprisonment for one month.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nprosecution case as disclosed from the FIR and unfolded during trial
\nis as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.1.\t\tDeceased
\nChetan alias Pappu Pandharinath Vani was a retail vegetable vendor,
\nwho used to sell vegetables at Haripura Vegetable Market. A-1,
\nJagdishchandra who is the husband of A-2, Vandanaben alias Gitaben,
\ncame to know about the illicit relations of Vandana alias Gita with
\nChetan alias Pappu. Therefore on 10.11.1999 at about 8 P.M., both the
\naccused reached the place where Chetan alias Pappu was selling
\nvegetables and A-2 gave fest blows and pulled his hair whereas A-1
\ntook out a knife and gave severe blows to Chetan as a result of which
\nhe sustained injuries and succumbed to the same soon thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
2.2.\t\tA
\ncomplaint in this regard has been lodged by P.W.1, Shailaben
\nPandharinath Vani, mother of deceased Chetan alias Pappu, Ex.10. The
\nsaid complaint was recorded by P.W.9, Natwarlal Somabhai Rathod, PI
\nof Amraiwadi Police Station at LG Hospital, Ahmedabad against the
\naccused persons where it is registered vide CR No.492\/99 at Amraiwadi
\nPolice Station, Ahmedabad City and which is on record at Ex.45.\n<\/p>\n
2.3.\t\tP.W.9,
\nNatwarlal S Rathod, thereafter started investigation and held inquest
\non the dead body of deceased Chetan and sent the dead body to Civil
\nHospital, Ahmedabad for post mortem examination. Panchnama of the
\nscene of offence was drawn. He recorded statements of the witnesses
\nand arrested both the accused persons and drawn panchnama of their
\nperson and recovered the clothes worn by them. During the course of
\ninvestigation, A-1 has shown willingness to show the knife which he
\nhas used for commission of the offence in the presence of panchas and
\ntherefore discovery panchnama was drawn and knife which was stained
\nwith blood was recovered at the instance of A-1 in presence of
\npanchas from the place which was shown by A-1. Thereafter he sent the
\nmuddamal articles, knife as well as clothes, 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 Metropolitan
\nMagistrate’s Court, Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n
2.5.\t\tAs
\nthe offence under Section 302 is exclusively triable by a court of
\nSessions, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to
\nthe City sessions Court, Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n
2.6.\t\tThe
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, City Sessions Court,
\nAhmedabad (‘the trial court’ for short) to whom the case was made
\nover for trail, framed the charge against the accused persons. The
\naccused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried and
\nthereupon they were put to trial by the trial Court in Sessions case
\nNo.148 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
2.7.\t\tTo
\nprove the culpability of the accused, the prosecution has examined 9
\nwitnesses and relied upon their oral testimonies, details of which
\nhave been mentioned in para 1 of the impugned judgment and order.
\nThey are as under:\n<\/p>\n
Sr.No.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.No.\n<\/p>\n
  Name
\n\t\t\t\tof witness<\/p>\n
Ex.No.\n<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
PW
\n\t\t\t\t1<\/span><\/p>\n
Shailaben
\n\t\t\t\tPandharinath Vani<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
PW
\n\t\t\t\t2<\/span><\/p>\n
Jayantibhai
\n\t\t\t\tVechatji Rathod<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
PW
\n\t\t\t\t3<\/span><\/p>\n
Kalpeshbhai
\n\t\t\t\tMaganbhai Kamande<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
PW
\n\t\t\t\t4<\/span><\/p>\n
Hareshchandra
\n\t\t\t\tGabhalbha Jadav<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
PW
\n\t\t\t\t5<\/span><\/p>\n
Lalaram
\n\t\t\t\tRamjiram Sharma<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
PW
\n\t\t\t\t6<\/span><\/p>\n
Sanjaybhai
\n\t\t\t\tShivabhai Patel<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
PW
\n\t\t\t\t7<\/span><\/p>\n
Savdhanji
\n\t\t\t\tValaji Darbar<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
PW
\n\t\t\t\t8<\/span><\/p>\n
Shaileshbhai
\n\t\t\t\tMadhurbhai Gurjar<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
PW
\n\t\t\t\t9<\/span><\/p>\n
Natwarlal
\n\t\t\t\tSomabhai Rathod<\/p>\n
35<\/span><\/p>\n
2.8.\t\tTo
\nprove the case against the accused, the prosecution has also produced
\na number of documents and relied upon the contents thereof, the
\ndetails of which have been  described in  the last part of para 1 of
\nthe impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
2.9.\t\tAfter
\nrecording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the
\ntrial Court explained to the accused the circumstances appearing
\nagainst them and recorded their further statement under Section 313
\nof the Code. In their further statement, the accused denied the case
\nof the prosecution in its entirety. They have stated that a false and
\nconcocted case  has been filed against them.
\n A-1 has denied discovery of knife at his instance. A-2 has also
\ndenied that the clothes alleged to have been recovered in presence of
\npanchas. Both of them have reiterated that false case has been filed
\nagainst them and they have been falsely ropped in the case. However,
\nthey have neither led any evidence nor examined any witness in
\nsupport of their 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 the deceased  Chetan alias
\nPappu has died a homicidal death and A-1 is the author of the
\ninjuries caused to the deceased with knife. Therefore the prosecution
\nhas successfully established the complicity of A-1 for commission of
\nmurder of Chetan alias Pappu whereas the prosecution has failed to
\nestablish complicity of A-2 for commission of the offence of murder
\nof Chetan alias Pappu. She has been held guilty only for the offence
\nunder Section 323 IPC.  On the aforesaid finding, the trial court
\nconvicted A-1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also under
\nSection 135 (1) BP Act whereas A-2 has been convicted for the offence
\nunder section 323 IPC and both of them have been sentenced
\naccordingly to which reference is made in the earlier paragraphs of
\nthis judgment which has given rise to instant appeal at the instance
\nof original accused No.1 (A-1).\n<\/p>\n
3.\tMs. Sadhna Sagar,
\nlearned advocate for the accused appointed by the Legal Aid Committee
\nfor A-1, has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the
\ncharge levelled against A-1 as all the witnesses are interested
\nwitnesses. She has also contended that evidence of T.I. Parade does
\nnot inspire confidence. So far as discovery of knife at the instance
\nof A-1 is concerned, the said piece of evidence is not clinching and
\nsatisfactory. Therefore, according to her, the impugned judgment and
\norder is contrary to the evidence on record which deserves to be
\nquashed and set aside and thereby A-1 may be acquitted of the
\noffences with which he was charged. She therefore urged to allow the
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tPer
\ncontra, Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned APP for the respondent – State of
\nGujarat has submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality
\ncommitted by the trial Court in recording the conviction and sentence
\nagainst A-1. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned
\njudgment and order. According to him, there is ample evidence on
\nrecord to show that A-1  was having a grudge against deceased Chetan
\nand wanted to take revenge in connection with the illicit relations
\nhe had with his wife- A-2. Therefore, he, in the company of his wife
\nA-2, came at the place where deceased Chetan was selling vegetable
\nand inflicted multiple injuries on vital parts of his body and on
\nreceiving such injuries Chetan succumbed to the same. Therefore,
\ncomplicity of A-1 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 A-1 by the
\ntrial court.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThis 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
\nand order. 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.\tThere is no dispute
\nto the fact that the deceased had 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.4, Dr.
\nHareshchandra Gabhalbha Jadav, Ex.15. He was a Medical Officer, Civil
\nHospital, Ahmedabad at the relevant and he performed post mortem
\nexamination on the dead body of Chetan alias Pappu, which is on
\nrecord at Ex.16.\n<\/p>\n
6.1.  On a conjoint
\nreading of the oral testimony of P.W.4, Dr. Hareshchandra Gabhalbha
\nJadav, Ex.15 and the post mortem report at Ex.16, it is seen that
\nthere were four external injuries and ten internal injuries on the
\ndead body of Chetan which were on vital parts of the body and the
\ncause of death was stab and incised wounds at various parts of body
\nwhich damaged vital organs like liver, (Rt) lung and other organs.\n<\/p>\n
6.2.\t\tIn view of  the
\naforesaid evidence, according to us, the prosecution has established
\nthat Chetan alias Pappu died a homicidal death. We are, therefore, of
\nthe opinion that the trial court has rightly held that Chetan alias
\nPappu has died a homicidal death and, therefore, we confirm the said
\nfinding and hold that the deceased has died a homicidal death.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tNow the next
\nquestion is whether A-1 was the author of injuries caused to deceased
\nChetan.\n<\/p>\n
7.1.\t\tTo prove this
\nfact, the prosecution has examined and relied upon the oral testimony
\nof P.W.1, Shailaben Pandharinath Vani, Ex.10. It may be noted that
\nshe is not a eye witness to the incident. She came to know about the
\nmurder of his son Chetan from one Lalabhai who had seen the incident.
\nHowever, he could not identify the assailants at the spot. P.W.1,
\nSahilaben has inter alia testified as per the complaint lodged by her
\nwhich is on record at Ex.45. It is also testified by her that after
\nreceiving the information from Lalabhai she along with her daughter
\nand son went to the place where her son Chetan was lying in a
\nprofusely bleeding condition and unconscious and they shifted him to
\nthe hospital where he was declared dead.\n<\/p>\n
7.2.\t\tThis witness was
\ncross-examined at length but nothing substantial could be brought out
\nfrom her cross-examination which would impeach the credibility of
\nthis witness.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tThe prosecution has
\nthereafter examined and relied upon the oral testimony of P.W.3,
\nKalpeshbhai Maganbhai Kamande, Ex.14. The prosecution has projected
\nhim as an eye witness. He has inter alia testified that the incident
\nhad taken place on 10.11.1999 at about 8 P.M., when he was at
\nHaripura vegetable market for purchasing vegetable. He was standing
\nnear the lorry of Chetan alias Pappu and at that time A-2, Vandanaben
\nalias Gitaben suddenly came there and caught hold of the hair of
\nChetan and started beating him. At that time, A-1, Jagdishbhai,
\nhusband of Vandanaben, came with a knife and started inflicting one
\nafter another blows on Chetan. Thereafter Vandanaben and Jagdishbhai
\nran away.\n<\/p>\n
8.1.\t\tIt may be
\nappreciated that this witness was cross-examined at length by the
\nlearned advocate for the accused but nothing substantial has been
\nbrought out from his cross-examination which would impeach  the
\ncredibility of his evidence.\n<\/p>\n
8.2.\t\tOn reappraisal of
\nthe evidence of this witness, according to us, complicity of A-1 in
\ncommission of murder of Chetan is duly established.\n<\/p>\n
8.3. It is settled legal
\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
8.4.\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
8.5.\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
\nthereafter examined and relied upon the evidence of P.W.5, Lalaram
\nRamjiram Sharma, Ex.17. He has inter alia testified in the same line
\nas testified by P.W.2, Jayantibhai Vechatji Rathod. He has deposed
\nthat he  could not identify the accused at the spot but he narrated
\nthe incident in verbatim as narrated by P.W.2, Jayantibhai Vechatji
\nRathod, Ex.11.\n<\/p>\n
9.1.\t\tThe prosecution
\nhas just with a view to identify the accused, held TI Parade  and in
\nthe TI parade he has identified A-1 and A-2 as the assailants. The TI
\nParade was arranged by P.W.7, Savdhanji Valaji Darbar, Executive
\nMagistrate, Ex.24.\n<\/p>\n
9.2.\t\tThis witness was
\nalso cross-examined at length by the learned advocate for the defence
\nwith a view to impeach the credibility of his evidence with regard to
\nidentifying A-1 and A-2 in the TI Parade but he has successfully
\nwithstood the test of cross-examination and nothing substantial could
\nbe brought out from his cross-examination which would impeach the
\ncredibility of his evidence.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tThe prosecution has
\nsuccessfully established the complicity of A-1 in commission of
\noffence of murder of deceased Chetan from the testimonies of the
\nabove witnesses. However, further to corroborate the evidence, the
\nprosecution has relied upon the discovery panchnama of knife used by
\nA-1 for commission of the offence which was recovered at his
\ninstance.\n<\/p>\n
10.1.\t\tIn this
\nconnection, the prosecution has examined P.W.2, Jayantibhai Vechatji
\nRathod, Ex.11. He has deposed as per the contents of panchnama which
\nis on record at Ex.13 and in his presence A-1 has shown his
\nwillingness to show the weapon while recording preliminary panchnama
\nand thereafter he has taken the panch witness as well as police to
\nthe place where he had hidden the weapon and from the place shown by
\nA-1 A-1 had taken out the knife having blood stain.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tTo further
\ncorroborate the prosecution case the prosecution has relied upon the
\nFSL report Ex.40 with respect to analysis done on the muddamal
\narticles, clothes worn by the accused as well as the knife which were
\nhaving blood stains. As per FSL report, the blood stains found on the
\nmuddamal articles were of A group which is  similar blood group of
\nthe deceased. Therefore it has to be held that A-1 has used the knife
\nfor committing murder of Chetan and therefore the knife was stained
\nwith blood of A group and on the clothes put on by A-1 also A blood
\ngroup was found.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tOn overall
\nreappraisal of the prosecution evidence, according to us, there are
\ntwo eye witnesses who saw A-1 giving fatal blows with knife to
\ndeceased.  He has been identified in TI Parade by the witness and
\nmuddamal articles which was recovered at his instance also was having
\nsimilar blood group as that of deceased.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIn view of the
\nclinching and satisfactory evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
\ncomplicity of A-1 in commission of the offence of murder of Chetan
\nalias Pappu has been duly established. Suffice it to say that the
\ntrial Court has given cogent and convincing reason for convicting A-1
\nfor commission of offences under Section 302 IPC and  Section 135 (1)
\nBP Act and Ms. Sadhna Sagar, learned advocate for the A-1, could not
\ndislodge the said reasons given by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
14.\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
15.\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
16.\t\tFor the foregoing
\nreasons, the appeal fails and accordingly  it is dismissed.
\nResultantly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
\n16.10.2000 rendered in Sessions Case No.148 of 2000 by the learned
\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, City Sessions Court,
\nAhmedabad, is hereby confirmed and maintained.\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 Jagdishbhai vs State on 4 August, 2008 Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/51\/2001 21\/ 21 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 51 of 2001 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-185589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJagdishbhai vs State on 4 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\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagdishbhai vs State on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-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=\"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-23T21:21:20+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagdishbhai vs State on 4 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-23T21:21:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2916,\"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\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Jagdishbhai vs State on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-23T21:21:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagdishbhai vs State on 4 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":"Jagdishbhai vs State on 4 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\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagdishbhai vs State on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-23T21:21:20+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagdishbhai vs State on 4 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-23T21:21:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008"},"wordCount":2916,"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\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008","name":"Jagdishbhai vs State on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-23T21:21:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagdishbhai vs State on 4 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\/185589","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=185589"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185589\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}