{"id":194827,"date":"2008-06-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008"},"modified":"2015-11-10T04:24:50","modified_gmt":"2015-11-09T22:54:50","slug":"khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Khumansinh vs Unknown on 23 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Khumansinh vs Unknown on 23 June, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A.L.Dave,&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\/425\/1999\t 26\/ 26\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. 425 of 1999\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE DN PATEL\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\n\t\t\tbe referred 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\nKHUMANSINH\n@ JUGO @ RAMESH AMBALAL CHAVDA & 1 - Appellants\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMS\nMONA B RAVAL WITH MR BS SUPEHIA WITH MR PM VYAS WITH MS REKHA H\nKAPADIA for the Appellants. \nMR PD BHATE, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for the\nOpponent. \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\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE DN PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/06\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \n\t\t\t\tORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.PATEL)<\/p>\n
1.\t\tThe
\npresent appeal has been preferred  against the judgment and order
\ndated 30th March, 1999 in Sessions case No. 298 of 1998 passed by the
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, whereby the
\npresent appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable
\nunder Sections 302, 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The
\nsentence awarded to the appellants is as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tAccused
\nno.1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay
\na fine of Rs. 1000\/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous
\nimprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under section
\n302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant no.1 was sentenced to
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs.
\n500\/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six
\nmonths for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section
\n34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant no.1 was sentenced to
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000\/-,
\nin default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years
\nfor the offence punishable under section 376(2)(G)  of the Indian
\nPenal Code.  The appellant no.1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000\/-, in
\ndefault, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year for
\nthe offence punishable under sections 363, 366 read with section 34
\nof the Indian Penal Code. The appellant no.1 was sentenced to undergo
\nrigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 500\/-, in
\ndefault, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months
\nfor the offence punishable under section 365 read with section 34 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code. The appellant no.1 was sentenced to undergo
\nrigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 500\/-, in
\ndefault, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for
\nthe offence punishable under section 372  of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant no.2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
\nfive years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000\/-, in default, to undergo
\nfurther rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence
\npunishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal
\nCode. The appellant no.2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000\/-, in
\ndefault, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months
\nyears for the offence punishable under section 376 read with section
\n114 of the Indian Penal Code.  The appellant no.2 was sentenced to
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs.
\n1,000\/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six
\nmonths for the offence punishable under section 372  of the Indian
\nPenal Code. The appellant no.2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 500\/-, in default,
\nto undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the
\noffence punishable under sections 363, 366  of the Indian Penal Code.
\nThe appellant no.2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
\none year and pay a fine of Rs. 500\/- in default, to undergo further
\nrigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable
\nunder section 365  of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tBrief
\nfacts of the prosecution case are as under:\n<\/p>\n
  \t\tIt
\nis the case of the prosecution that on 23rd May, 1998, the
\ncomplainant-prosecutrix was kidnapped alongwith her sister by the
\npresent appellants. Thereafter, they were taken to various places as
\nreferred in the FIR and were compelled to have several intercourse.
\nIt is also a case of prosecution that the appellant No.1 and other
\naccused had committed rape on the complainant. Accused caused murder
\nof Raziabanu – sister of prosecutrix. The complainant was also thrown
\nin the gutter line wherefrom she was rescued by the prosecution
\nwitness Nos.14  and 15. Thereafter, FIR was registered on 9th
\nJuly,1998. Investigation was carried out, charge-sheet was filed and
\nthe present two appellants, alongwith other two accused were
\nprosecuted. The appellants have been punished as stated hereinabove,
\n whereas, rest of the accused have been acquitted. Against this
\njudgment and order of conviction, the appellants have preferred the
\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tWe
\nhave heard the learned counsel for the appellants, who have mainly
\nstated that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable
\ndoubt, the offences as alleged against the appellants. There is no
\nevidence of rape committed by the appellant No.1 upon the
\ncomplainant, nor there is any evidence of murder committed by the
\npresent appellants and sister of the present complainant. There is no
\nlink between appellants and murder of Raziabanu. There is no eye
\nwitness nor chain of circumstances has been completed and proved by
\nthe prosecution. It is also contended by the learned advocate for the
\nappellants that evidence of the prosecutrix inspires no confidence
\nand, therefore, assurance is required from the other circumstances or
\n evidence directly or indirectly. It is also submitted by the learned
\nadvocate for the appellants that the prosecutrix has not narrated
\nanything in her FIR about rape committed by appellant No.1. She has
\nimproved case in her deposition which is a material improvement.
\nLikewise, the prosecutrix has not narrated about committing rape
\nbefore prosecution witness Nos.14 and 15 who have rescued her as per
\nher allegations nor has she stated anything before Doctor about rape
\ncommitted by appellant no.1. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that
\nshe was with the appellants for several days. She was knowing the
\nnames of the appellant, but she has never stated the names of the
\nappellants before anyone. It is also contended by the learned
\nadvocate for the appellants that neither medical evidence nor FSL
\nreport is corroborating the allegations propounded by the prosecutrix
\nagainst the appellants and, therefore, the order of conviction and
\nsentence requires to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tWe
\nhave also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of
\nthe State, who has mainly submitted that looking to the deposition of
\nthe prosecutrix, the case of the prosecution is established beyond
\nreasonable doubt which proves the offence against the present
\nappellants. There is no need of any corroboration, once clear version
\nis given by the prosecutrix. It is also submitted by the learned
\nAdditional Public Prosecutor that looking to the deposition of the
\nprosecution witnesses, especially of P.W.Nos.1 and 2, who is
\nprosecutrix and brother of the prosecutrix, respectively and also
\nlooking to the evidence given by the Doctor and independent witness
\nNos.14 and 15, the offence of rape and murder has been proved beyond
\nreasonable doubt against the present appellants. Even in test
\nidentification parade, the prosecutrix has identified the present
\nappellants. Looking to the totality of the prosecution evidence, the
\norder of conviction may not be altered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tHaving
\nheard the learned advocates for both the sides and looking to the
\nevidence on record, the judgment and order dated 30th March, 1999 in
\nSessions case No. 298 of 1998 passed by the learned Additional
\nSessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, requires to be quashed and set aside
\nfor the following facts and reasons:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe
\noffence has taken place on 23rd May,1998. It is the case of the
\nprosecutrix that she was knowing the appellants even before they left
\nthe house. The prosecutrix as well as her sister Raziabanu left the
\nhouse in search of work to assist their brother who is the only
\nearning male member in the family.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\t\tLooking
\nto the deposition of the prosecutrix at Exh.12, it is stated by her
\nthat they left the house on their own. It was a pre-meditated action
\non their part. It is also stated by her that in her deposition that
\nthey have left the house to assist their brother financially. They
\nleft house with some additional cloths and with some money. They were
\nin search of work and they reached at Mahemdabad railway station.
\nThey met the present appellants at Mahemdabad railway station.
\nThereafter, they had gone to village known as Uttarsanda (1st place)
\nwhere they (prosecutrix as well as her sister) resided for about 10
\ndays and they worked in the field. Thereafter they had gone to
\nanother village (2nd place) by rickshaw and they were residing in one
\nhouse. There they stayed for about five to six days. Thereafter,
\nagain they have travelled from that village to a field of tobacco at
\nvillage: Vadod (3rd place) and there they worked for few days. It is
\nalso stated by the prosecutrix in her deposition that from that
\ntobacco field, they had gone to Anand city (4th place) and from
\nAnand, they had again returned to tobacco field. Again they stayed
\nfor few days. Thereafter  again from tobacco field, the prosecutrix
\nhad gone to Anand. It is alleged by her that she was taken to the
\nhotel (5th place) where she was raped by unknown persons. Again
\nthereafter, the prosecutrix had travelled to Vadodara (6th place).
\nFrom \tVadodara, it is stated by her that she was taken in one tempo
\nvehicle and she was walking alongwith the present appellants for
\nthree to four kms. at about 2 to 3 a.m. night hours and thereafter,
\nshe was thrown in a gutter line. At about 7.00 a.m., she was rescued
\nby P.W.14, who had thereafter, taken her to prosecution witness
\nNo.15. Looking to this narration of facts in her deposition, it
\nappears that the prosecutrix as well as her sister had visited
\nseveral places from Mahemdabad, thereafter at Uttarsanda, thereafter
\nat one more village  name of which has not been given, thereafter at
\nfield of tobacco at village: Vadod, fourthly at Anand city, fifthly
\nat a hotel, then at Vadodara (6th place). Thus, travelling was done
\nthrough several types of vehicles, i.e. by train, by a tempo, by
\nrickshaw and, then, she has narrated that she had also walked for 2
\nto 3 kms. alongwith appellants. Nowhere she has shouted nor she has
\nnarrated that she and her sister were kidnapped by the appellants. In
\ntrain, there must be several persons. In tempo, there must be several
\nother persons. The place at which she had done labour work, as per
\nher narration in her deposition, several persons whom she must have
\nmet. But never any complaint was made, neither by the prosecutrix nor
\nby her sister Raziabanu about their kidnapping by the appellants.
\nThere is no evidence by any prosecution witness that these girls have
\never complained about their kidnapping or rape before any prosecution
\nwitness.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tSame
\nis the case with  the prosecutrix so far as allegation of rape is
\nconcerned. Looking to her deposition, it is stated that she was
\nresiding with the appellants for several days at several places.
\nAfter several days of offence, FIR was registered. As stated
\nhereinabove, the offence has taken place on 23rd May,1998 whereas FIR
\nwas registered on 9th October,1998. Despite the fact that she was
\nknowing the names of the accused, she has never stated the fact of
\nrape before the prosecution witness No.14 who had rescued her first
\nin point of time from gutter line as stated by her nor she has given
\nthe names of the accused before prosecution witness No.15 before she
\nwas taken by P.W.14. Likewise, the allegation of rape was also not
\nrevealed against the appellants by the prosecutrix  before the doctor
\nby whom she was examined i.e. before prosecution witness No.13.
\nProsecution witness No.13 Dr.Naishyat Bhanubhai Bhatt has issued a
\ncertificate after examining prosecutrix, is at Exh.40. It is stated
\nby Doctor in the case history that prosecution had sexual intercourse
\non 7.7.1998 by somebody. She had intercourse by different  men. She
\ndoes not know the names. The doctor has also observed in the
\ncertificate that no external injuries are seen on her body. No
\nexternal injuries on her private part. No semen on clothes nor on
\npubic hair and hymen was ruptured. She had intercourse in past also.
\nThese are the observations in the certificate issued by the doctor
\nafter examination of the prosecutrix.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tIt
\nis also stated by the prosecutrix in her deposition that she and her
\nsister were taken by the accused and the present appellant No.1 was
\ntreating them as sisters, as per the cross-examination of the
\nprosecutrix. It is also stated by her that at certain places, they
\nwere kept separately in separate room. Looking to the FIR, there is
\nno allegation against the appellant No.1 that she was raped by the
\nappellant No.1. Looking to the deposition of the prosecutrix, it is
\nnot the case of the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief that she
\nwas ever raped by appellant No.1. Even during the cross-examination,
\nthere was no such case of the prosecution. Looking to her deposition,
\nit is only upon query raised by the court, it is answered by the
\nprosecutrix that the appellant No.1 had sexual intercourse with the
\nprosecutrix against her desire, which is before she was thrown in a
\ngutter line. Looking to this deposition, FIR and her silence before
\nthe prosecution witness Nos.14 and 15 as well as before Doctor-P.W.13
\nand looking to the improvements made by her in her deposition, her
\ndeposition inspires no confidence. It requires assurance (if not
\ncorroboration) from other circumstances or evidence as per the
\ndecisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases reported
\nin (i) (2007)1 SCC (Criminal) 161 (ii) (2007)1 SCC (Criminal) 546\n<\/p>\n
(iii) (2007)1 SCC (Criminal) 198 and (iv) (2008)2 SCC (Criminal) 207.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tLooking
\nto the deposition of prosecution witness No.2, who is the brother of
\nthe complainant, he has narrated the facts which were stated by the
\ncomplainant to him. It also appears that after the prosecutrix as
\nwell as her sister or sister of prosecution witness No.2 namely
\nRaziabanu left the house on 23rd May,1998, no complaint was ever made
\nby this P.W.No.2 before anyone, neither before neighbours nor before
\nrelatives nor before other village people, much less before police.
\nIt is stated by P.W.2, brother of the complainant that as police came
\nfrom Mahemdabad Police Station, he had gone to police station, where
\nhe saw his sister.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tLooking
\nto the deposition of P.W.3 Chhanabhai Dhulabhai Chauhan, who is a
\npanch witness of panchnama of clothes of Accused No.1 and of scene of
\noffence panchnama, which are at Exhs.16 and 17. P.W.No.4 namely
\nAmarsinh Babarbhai, who is a witness of panchnama of clothes of the
\ncomplainant, which is at Exh.19 and also a witness of panchnama
\n(Exh.20) of gutter line (canal), from where, the complainant was
\nrescued by P.W.14. It is also stated by this witness that there was
\nwater in this gutter line upto the level of 7 ft.. P.W.5 Arjunbhai
\nChhanabhai Barot, who is panch witness of place, where the present
\nappellants were residing, which is also a place at which rape was
\ncommitted by several persons. This panchnama is at Exh.22. P.W.6 is
\nthe panch witness of test identification parade, namely Mumtazbanu
\nRiyazahmed. It is stated by this witness that the present appellants
\nwere identified by the prosecutrix in test  identification parade.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tP.W.No.\n<\/p>\n
7 is Sureshbhai Radhavprasad, who is a hostile panch witness of
\nclothes of the deceased Raziyabanu. It is stated by him that there
\nwas no person present before police and no photographs of the dead
\nbody were shown to him nor the clothes of the deceased were
\nidentified by anybody.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tThe
\nprosecution witness No.8 is Pintukumar Kalyanprasad Aggrawal, who is
\nalso a panch witness of the clothes of the deceased, who has also
\nbeen declared hostile witness. Thus, he is not supporting the
\npanchnama drawn at Exh.27.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tThe
\nnext prosecution witness is P.W.No.9 Icchaben Udesing. It is stated
\nby her that she does not know the appellant No.1. She has been
\ndeclared hostile. The prosecution witness No.10 is Rajeshbhai
\nDahyabhai, who is the owner of tobacco field. It is stated by him
\nthat the prosecutrix as well as another girl were working in his
\nfield and present appellant Nos.1 and 2 had brought the prosecutrix
\nas well as  her sister for work. They were residing in a separate
\nroom. This witness has not stated that prosecutrix or her sister had
\nmade any complaint of kidnapping or rape by any one before him. It is
\nstated that these girls and appellants were residing in a room
\nallotted to them and were working in tobacco field.  P.W. No.11 is
\nMinaben  Rajnikant Dave, who has accepted various parcels and samples
\nin sealed condition from Mahemdabad Police Station. Serologist’s
\nreport was drawn by her, which is at Exh.33. Likewise, another report
\nwas also prepared and signed by her at Exh.32. Looking to this FSL
\nreport, clothes of prosecutrix were not having blood marks of group
\nof appellant No.1 nor there was any mark having semen. Mark “P”
\nunderwear of deceased. Mark “M” “kurta” of
\nprosecutrix – complainant. No semen is found. Blood group is
\nuncertain. Sample of semen of accused- appellant no.1 was not taken.
\nno analysis report. Vaginal swab of deceased Narg’s was not taken as
\nper cross-examination of Doctor -P.W.13, otherwise it would have
\nhelped in identifying it is of which accused spermatozoa. No marks of
\nsemen on clothes of prosecutrix. Looking to these documents at
\nExhs.32 and 33, from the clothes of the deceased, it cannot be said
\nthat the offence of rape was committed by the present appellant No.1.
\nP.W.No.12 Mohmedhasim Habibmiya Gandhi, who is the Executive
\nMagistrate, before whom, test identification parade was carried out.
\nIt is stated by him that the prosecutrix had identified accused and
\npanchnama was drawn at Exh.67 by him.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tP.W.No.13
\nis Dr.Naishyat Bhanubhai Bhatt, who had examined the prosecutrix  on
\n10th July 1998. Looking to his deposition, it is categorically stated
\nby him that when the prosecutrix was examined, she had stated that
\nshe was raped by different persons and on 7th July,1998 at night
\nhours, somebody had sexual intercourse with her. She had not given
\nany name to him. It is to be noted that as per the allegations
\nlevelled by the prosecutrix, the present appellants had taken the
\ncomplainant as well as her sister and appellant No.1 had committed
\nrape  upon complainant. Nowhere name was given by her of the
\nappellant No.1, not even before this P.W.No.13, though she was
\nknowing appellants and though she has stayed with them at several
\nplaces and for several days, as per deposition of prosecutrix. No
\nexternal injuries were found by this Doctor. The certificate is also
\ngiven by this witness at Exh.40, which also reflects that in the case
\nhistory, she has not stated the name of the present appellant No.1.
\nIt is also observed in the said certificate at Exh.40 that no
\nexternal injuries were found on her body. No injuries on her private
\npart. No semen on clothes was found nor on pubic hair and hymen was
\nruptured.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tP.W.\n<\/p>\n
No.14 Fatesinh Jethabhai, who is the witness, who has rescued the
\nprosecutrix from gutter line, where she was thrown by the present
\nappellants, as per the deposition of the prosecutrix. She was thrown
\nin the gutter line at about 3.00 a.m., as per P.W.No.1. She remained
\nin the gutter line upto morning hours and after 7.00 a.m., she was
\nsaved by this P.W.No.14. Thereafter, this witness had taken her to
\nthe prosecution witness No.15. Before this P.W.No.15 also, the
\nprosecutrix has not stated the name of the present appellants, though
\nshe had stayed with them at several places for several days as stated
\nin her deposition at Exh.12.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tP.W.\n<\/p>\n
No.15 Amrasinh Babarbhai, who states that P.W.No.14 brought the
\nprosecutrix before him. He has identified her from the photographs of
\nthe prosecutrix. This witness states that the prosecutrix had not
\nstated anything before him that how she fallen\/ thrown in gutter line
\nand who threw her in the gutter line. Though this witness asked her
\nspecifically, no name was given by the prosecutrix nor any fact of
\nrape was ever stated by this prosecutrix  before P.W.14 or P.W.15.
\nThere is not a single avernment or statement that the prosecutrix had
\nnarrated the story of rape  or other offence committed by the present
\nappellants were narrated before these two witnesses, who met her for
\nthe first time, after she was rescued from the gutter line.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tP.W.No.16
\nRajamanikam Odiya who is the witness who has seen the dead body of
\nthe deceased Raziyabanu on railway lines. This witness is serving in
\nRailway department and his duty is to check railway lines from
\nNandesari to Vasad bridge and while checking these railway lines at
\nbridge No.621, he saw dead body of Raziyabanu and thereafter, police
\nwas informed by Nandesari Station Master and this is how dead body of
\nRaziyabanu was found out. P.W. 17 is the teacher of the School, who
\nhas presented the birth certificate of the prosecutrix at Exh.49,
\nwhich reveals the fact that the birth date of the complainant as
\n20.11.1980 and that of the deceased as 5th February,1978. P.W.Nos.18
\nand 19 are witnesses, who have witnessed photographs of the deceased
\ntaken by the photographer and of railway line wherefrom the dead body
\nof Raziyabanu was found.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tP.W.21
\nis Dr. Vijaysinh Ganpatsinh Rathod, who has carried out postmortem of
\nthe deceased Raziyabanu. Postmortem was carried out on 6th July,
\n1998. It is stated by this witness that there were external injuries
\nwhich were referred in column no.17 of the postmortem notes. There
\nwere marks of injuries and the neck of the deceased having contusion
\nof 8 x 7 cm. There was a fracture of hyod bone and the cause of death
\nwas due to strangulation.  Thus, death of Raziyabanu was homicidal
\nand injuries were ante mortem as stated by him in his deposition.
\nP.W.No.23 is police witness Ramsinh Fulsinh Dabho, who has
\ninvestigated the case, who has collected various evidences and sent
\nfor FSL report. He has also drawn various panchnamas of clothes of
\nthe accused, prosecutrix and of deceased Raziyabanu.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tLooking
\nto the cumulative effect of the evidence of these prosecution
\nwitnesses, it appears that as per the prosecutrix, the present
\nappellants were known to the prosecutrix and her sister even before
\nshe and her sister left the house. The facts narrated in the FIR are
\ndifferent than her deposition. Never she has stated in the FIR that
\nthe appellant No.1 has committed rape upon her, whereas in her
\ndeposition, the prosecutrix has stated that when query is raised by
\nthe court that she was raped of appellant No.1. This is an
\nimprovement. This is a material deviation from her FIR. Such an
\nimportant aspect of the matter no lady would forget to mention in the
\nFIR. Secondly, she has stated that both the sisters had gone at
\nvarious places with the appellants. There are about seven such
\nplaces, which have been narrated hereinabove over a period of more
\nthan thirty days. Fairly several chances they were having, either to
\nrun away or to shout and to inform other persons. Neither they have
\nshouted nor they have run away from the alleged custody\/kidnapping of
\nthe present appellants. On the contrary, looking to the deposition of
\nthe prosecutrix, voluntarily, she alongwith her sister had left the
\nhouse. They were in search of work to assist their brother who was
\nthe only earning member in the family. Looking to this aspect of the
\nmatter, the offence of kidnapping and abduction by the present
\nappellants is not established. It is stated by the prosecutrix that
\ninitially, they were taken at one village namely Uttarsanda and
\nthereafter to another village, thereafter at the field of tobacco,
\nthereafter in the city of Anand and thereafter, again they came back
\nat the field of tobacco at Village: Vadod, resided there for several
\ndays. Thereafter, again the prosecutrix and her sister were taken at
\none hotel at Anand. Again the prosecutrix  came back to tobacco field
\nand thereafter, again she was taken at the city of Vadodara. At no
\nplace, she has shouted nor she has run away from the custody of the
\npresent appellants. They have travelled by train, truck and rickshaw,
\npublically. Likewise, she has never stated the fact of alleged
\nkidnapping and rape before anyone. Several persons must be there in
\nthe village or at tobacco field where she was working. Even she was
\nworking at field at village- Uttarsanda. Several persons were there
\nin the tobacco field who must have worked with the prosecutrix. No
\nsuch witness has been examined by the prosecution nor it is the case
\nof the prosecutrix that she has ever stated these allegations before
\nanyone. This shakes our confidence in her. The prosecutrix is not a
\nreliable witness and, therefore, corroborative assurance is required
\nto be gathered, either from direct evidence or from circumstance.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tNow,
\nlooking to other evidence collected by the prosecution, the best
\navailable evidence is that of P.W. No.14, who has rescued the
\nprosecutrix from gutter line. There is another reason for seeking
\nassurance from other evidence of the deposition of the prosecutrix
\nthat there is no allegation of rape upon the appellant No.1 in the
\nFIR filed by the prosecutrix. Though several opportunities were with
\nthe prosecutrix as she has moved from place to place during spread
\nover period of more than 30 days, neither she has shouted nor has she
\nrun away nor has stated the alleged facts of kidnapping or abduction
\nand rape by the appellant no.1, to anyone. She has travelled in
\nrailway, rickshaw, bus\/transportation and by walking, but nowhere to
\nanyone these facts were disclosed. The deposition of the prosecutrix
\nis not trustworthy or found reliable. Also for the reason that she
\nhas not stated any facts of kidnapping or rape even before i.e.
\nFatesingh Jethabhai P.W. No.14 or P.W.No.15 i.e. Amarsingh Babarbhai,
\nwho has rescued the prosecutrix. It is stated by the prosecution
\nwitness Nos.14 and 15 that a specific question was asked to her but
\nshe had not given the names of the persons who threw her in gutter
\nline. Likewise, in the case history given to Doctor who is P.W.
\nNo.13, the prosecutrix has not given the names of appellant No.1.
\nThus, several were the chances available to her to run away and to
\ndisclose names of accused-appellants, but she has not narrate these
\nallegations before anyone, neither even before her brother who is
\nP.W. No. 2. This witness has also not stated that the prosecutrix has
\ninformed him that the present appellant No.1 had committed rape on
\nher. No woman will forget or miss to mention, so easily the fact of
\nrape. This prosecutrix has not put any allegation in the FIR against
\nappellant no.1, nor as stated hereinabove, before any of the
\nprosecution witnesses. Thus, there is no assurance of her deposition
\nfrom other evidence. Looking to the medical evidence, it appears that
\nthere are no marks of injuries upon her. Medical evidence of the
\nprosecutrix is at Exh.40, which reflects that she does not know the
\nname of the person who committed rape on her. There are no external
\ninjuries seen on her body. No external injuries on her private part.
\nNo semen on clothes of the prosecutrix or on her pubic hair and hymen
\nwas found ruptured. She had sexual intercourse in the past. Thus, the
\nprosecutrix being a healthy girl and residing in a rural area,
\notherwise well built with the aforesaid facts and having no marks of
\ninjuries as per certificate Exh. 40 given by P.W.13 inspires no
\nconfidence in the deposition of the prosecutrix. Her deposition is
\nnot trustworthy and is having no assurance  from the corroborative
\ncircumstances. Thus, the prosecutrix and her sister had left the
\nhouse in search of work, voluntarily by taking their clothes and some
\nrupees. They had gone to Mahemdabad railway station and thereafter
\nfrom place to place for a period of about 30 days, alleging rape and
\nkidnapping and abduction, upon appellants without telling to anyone,
\nthough met several persons in tobacco field or when they travelled by
\ntrain, bus, truck and rickshaw nor to P.W.13. – doctor nor to P.W.
\nNos.14 and 15, who rescued her nor even to her brother, who is
\nP.W.No.2.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThus,
\non the facts of the case, the prosecutrix did not appear to be a
\nwitness of sterling quality, on whose sole testimony a conviction
\ncould be sustained. She tried to conceal the facts (in FIR, no
\nallegation of rape upon appellant No.1 whereas as per her deposition,
\nshe improved the case and levelled allegation against appellant
\nno.1). Thus, there is deviation from the case narrated in the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
19.1\t\tIt
\nhas been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadashiv
\nRamrao Hadbe V\/s. State of Maharashtra and another reported in
\n(2007)1 SCC (Cri) 161, para-9, reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“9.\tIt
\nis true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the
\nsole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring
\nconfidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the
\nprosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole
\nsurrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case
\nset up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary
\nevidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in
\naccepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case
\nis improbable and unlikely to happen.”\n<\/p>\n
19.2\t\tIt
\nhas been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramdas and
\nothers V\/s. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007)1 SCC (Cri) 546,
\npara-23, reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“23.\t\tIt
\nis no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based
\nsolely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a
\ncase where the court  is convicted about the truthfulness of the
\nprosecutrix and there exist no circumstances which cast a shadow of
\ndoubt over her veracity. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is of
\nsuch quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction
\nsolely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not
\nfind her evidence to be of such quality.”\n<\/p>\n
19.3\t\tIt
\nhas been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayan
\nalias Naran V\/s. State of Rajasthan reported in (2007)3 SCC (Cri)
\n198, para-11, reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“11.\t\tIn
\nthe cross-examination the prosecutrix (PW 3) stated that she boarded
\nthe trolley at about 5 o’clock in the evening and by 7 o’clock they
\nreached Singhpur Village. There were number of villages between
\nSinghpur and Akodiya. It is also required to appreciate that she
\nstated in her evidence that even after the accused committed rape on
\nher she sat in the tractor happily. It is not stated by her in her
\nevidence that she raised any hue and cry even while passing through
\nthe number of villages. In the first information report (Ext.P-5) she
\nstated that the accused committed rape on her thrice but in the
\nevidence she stated that the accused committed rape on her only twice
\nand not thrice. According to her the rape was committed on her on
\nkankar (rough way).  She did not state that she offered any
\nresistance though she was physically very strong. Medical report
\n(Ext. P-1) says that there were no injuries on the body of the
\nprosecutrix (PW 3). There were no injuries on her private part.
\nIt is ultimately opined that “no definite opinion can be given
\nregarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse”.
\nIn the circumstances, is it possible to believe that the prosecutrix
\n(PW 3) has been subjected to rape twice by the accused as alleged? In
\nthe first information report (Ext.P-5) it is stated that the
\nprosecutrix (PW 3) has been subjected to rape by the accused thrice
\nbut in her evidence she stated that she had been subjected to rape
\nonly twice. The accused even according to the prosecutrix (PW 3) was
\ndriving the tractor from Singhpur to Bharkiya crossing through a
\nnumber of villages. It is not stated by the prosecutrix (PW 3) that
\nshe made any attempt to get down from the tractor at any point of
\ntime. On the other hand, it is stated by her that she sat in the
\ntractor happily.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
19.4\t\tIt
\nhas been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhu V\/s.
\nState of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2008)2 SCC (Cri) 207,
\npara-12, reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“12.\t\tDr.Vandana
\n(PW 8) stated that on examination of Sumanbai, she found that her
\nmenstrual cycle had not started and pubic hair had not developed, and
\nthat her hymen was ruptured but the rupture was old. She stated that
\nthere were no injuries on her private parts and she could not give
\nany opinion as to whether any rape has been committed. These were
\nalso recorded in the examination report (Ext. P-8). She, however,
\nreferred to an abrasion on the left elbow and a small abrasion on the
\narm and a contusion on the right leg of Sumanbai. She further stated
\nthat she prepared two vaginal swabs for examination and handed it
\nover along with the petticoat of Sumanbai to the police constable,
\nfor being sent for examination.  But no evidence is placed about
\nthe results of the examination of the vaginal swabs and petticoat.
\nThus, the medical evidence does not corroborate the case of sexual
\nintercourse or rape.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
20.\t\tCumulative
\neffect of the aforesaid aspect and matter and evidence has not been
\nappreciated by the trial court. Looking to the FSL report, it appears
\nthat there is no corroboration of this evidence also. From the
\nclothes of the prosecutrix, no semen were found and blood group was
\nindecisive. Therefore, there is no question of matching with the
\naccused whatsoever arises. Sample of semen of accused- appellant no.1
\nis not taken. P.W.13- Dr.Nashgat in his cross examination states that
\nif vaginal swab of deceased Raziabanu would have taken, it would have
\nknown, it was (of which accused) whose ‘dead spermatozoa’. Thus, to
\nthe deposition of the prosecutrix, there is no support by this FSL
\nreport, which are at Exhs.32 and 33.\n<\/p>\n
21.\t\tLooking
\nto the evidence on record, there is no evidence against the present
\nappellants so far as murder of Raziyabanu is concerned. There is no
\nlive link between appellant and murder of Raziabanu. There is no eye
\nwitness of this murder. The whole case is based upon circumstances
\nand mainly upon solitary deposition of the prosecutrix, she is the
\nfirst and last witness to state that it is the present appellants who
\nhave committed murder of her sister.  There is no corroboration to
\nthis fact also from other evidence. The dead body was found out from
\nthe railway line. The only evidence is of Serologist’s report.
\nLooking to this report at Exh.33, from the clothes of the deceased
\nRaziabanu, especially of knicker, it is stated in the report that
\nthere was presence of blood marks with semen having “A” and
\n“O”. Antigen activity was found present of groups “A”
\nand “O”. This is the only evidence corroborating to
\nsolitary deposition of the prosecution connecting the accused and
\ndeath of the deceased. If this is analysed, accurately, it gives no
\nevidence by which it can be said that the offence, beyond reasonable
\ndoubt is proved against the present appellants that they have
\ncommitted murder of Raziabanu after committing rape by accused No.1
\nupon her. The allegations and accused are not linked with any
\nevidence. The prosecution has established that there was a homicidal
\ndeath of the deceased. Injuries upon her were ante mortem, but
\nimportant link between accused and death is missing. It is only few
\nlines in the deposition of the prosecutrix P.W.1, who has stated that
\nher sister has been murdered by appellants. There is no direct
\nevidence nor there is evidence of chain of circumstances against the
\npresent appellants linking them with the murder of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
22.\t\tAs
\nstated hereinabove, the deposition of the prosecutrix inspires no
\nconfidence and, therefore, assurance from other circumstances in the
\nfacts of this case, is necessary, which is found absent, in the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
23.\t\tSo
\nfar as murder is concerned, it requires corroboration which is also
\nlacking in the facts of the present case. Thus, the prosecution has
\nfailed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the offence of murder of
\nRaziyabanu by the present appellants. This aspect of the matter has
\nnot been properly appreciated by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
24.\t\tIt
\nis also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in
\ntest identification parade, the prosecutrix has identified the
\npresent appellants and, therefore, there is enough
\nassurance\/corroboration to her deposition. This attractive argument
\nis not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that looking to
\nthe cross-examination of P.W.1 i.e. prosecutrix, it has been stated
\nby her that out of the persons who were identified by her, one of
\nthem was travelling with her in police vehicle. It is also stated by
\nthe prosecutrix in her FIR that she knows the appellants, names of
\nboth the appellants have been given in the FIR. Thus, she has already
\nnarrated her acquaintance with both the appellants and, therefore,
\nthere is no much significance of test identification parade so far as
\nthe appellants are concerned.\n<\/p>\n
25.\t\tAs
\na cumulative effect of the aforesaid  evidence and reasons, the
\ncharges levelled    against the appellants are not proved.\n<\/p>\n
26.\t\tThus,
\nthis appeal is allowed. The   judgment and order dated 30th March,
\n1999 in Sessions Case No. 298 of 1998 passed by the learned
\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad is hereby quashed and set
\naside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against
\nthem. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any
\nother case. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
        \t\t\t         (A.L.Dave,J)<\/p>\n
                 (D.N.Patel,J)<\/p>\n
***darji<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Khumansinh vs Unknown on 23 June, 2008 Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Patel,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/425\/1999 26\/ 26 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 425 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DN PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of […]<\/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-194827","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKhumansinh vs Unknown on 23 June, 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\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Khumansinh vs Unknown on 23 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-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=\"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-09T22:54:50+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=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Khumansinh vs Unknown on 23 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-09T22:54:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":6302,\"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\\\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Khumansinh vs Unknown on 23 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-09T22:54:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Khumansinh vs Unknown on 23 June, 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":"Khumansinh vs Unknown on 23 June, 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\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Khumansinh vs Unknown on 23 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-09T22:54:50+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":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Khumansinh vs Unknown on 23 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-09T22:54:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008"},"wordCount":6302,"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\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008","name":"Khumansinh vs Unknown on 23 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-09T22:54:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khumansinh-vs-unknown-on-23-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Khumansinh vs Unknown on 23 June, 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\/194827","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=194827"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194827\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}