{"id":218987,"date":"2008-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-05-10T17:43:50","modified_gmt":"2017-05-10T12:13:50","slug":"farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Farooq vs Mr on 22 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Farooq vs Mr on 22 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: C.K.Buch,&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\/630\/1998\t 22\/ 22\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. 630 of 1998\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 803 of 1998\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 511 of 1998\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 578 of 1998\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH  \n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE D.N.PATEL\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nFAROOQ\n@ ASHISH HABIB PARMAR & 1 - Appellants\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent\n \n\n=========================================================\n \n Appearance in\nCriminal Appeal No.630 of 1998 : \nABATED\nfor Appellant No.1.\n \n\nMR\nJM PANCHAL for Appellant No.2. \nMS D.S.PANDIT, APP for the\nOpponent. \n \n \n\n\n \n\n Appearance\nin Criminal Appeal No.803 of 1998 : \nMS\nD.S.PANDIT, APP for the Appellant.\n \n\nMR\nJM PANCHAL for the Opponents.  \n \n \n\n\n \n\n Appearance\nin Criminal Revision Application No.511 of 1998 : \nMS\nD.S.PANDIT, APP for the Petitioner.\n \n\nMR\nJM PANCHAL for the Respondents.  \n \n \n\n\n \n\n Appearance\nin Criminal Revision Application No.578 of 1998 : \nM\/S.THAKKAR\nASSOCIATES for the Petitioner.\n \n\nMR\nJM PANCHAL for Respondent Nos.1 to 6.  \nMS D.S.PANDIT, APP for\nRespondent No.7.\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 C.K.BUCH\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 D.N.PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.PATEL)<\/p>\n
1.\t\tBoth
\nthe aforesaid Criminal Appeals as well as Criminal Revision
\nApplications have been preferred because of conviction of some of the
\naccused; acquittal of some of the accused; for expunging the remarks
\nagainst the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Criminal Revision
\nApplication No.578 of 1998 has been preferred by the original
\ncomplainant against the judgement and order of acquittal of some of
\nthe accused, which has been passed by learned Additional Sessions
\nJudge, Kheda at Nadiad dated 6th July,1998  in Sessions
\nCase Nos.82 of 1997 and 133 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tCriminal
\nAppeal No.630 of 1998 has been preferred by the original accused
\nNos.4 and 5 as they are convicted for life imprisonment for an
\noffence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
\nIndian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/-. Accused Nos.1,2,3
\nand 6 were acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
\nTherefore, State has preferred an acquittal appeal bearing Criminal
\nAppeal No.803 of 1998 against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 only. There is
\nno Appeal preferred by the State against acquittal of accused No.6.
\nCriminal Revision Application No.511 of 1998 has been preferred by
\nthe State for expunging remarks against Special Public Prosecutor
\nappointed by the State, especially in para-102 onwards in the
\njudgement passed by the Trial Court and Criminal Revision Application
\nNo.578 of 1998 has been preferred by the original complainant against
\nthe judgement and order of acquittal passed in Sessions Case No.82 of
\n1997 (registered against accused Nos.1 and 2) and in Sessions Case
\nNo.133 of 1997 (registered against accused Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6) by
\nLearned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tIf
\nthe facts of the prosecution are unfolded, they are summarised, in
\nshort, as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIt
\nis a case of the prosecution that on 31st May,1996 at
\nabout 9:45 a.m., Prafulkumar Bhikhubhai Patel was assaulted. Knife
\ninjuries were caused by the accused. This incident was seen by some
\nof the eye-witnesses i.e. P.W.Nos.4, 5 and 7. There is also
\nallegation of conspiracy. Investigation was carried out and these
\naccused were arrested and charge-sheeted. Sessions Case No.82 of 1997
\nwas instituted against accused Nos.1 and 2, whereas, Sessions Case
\nNo.133 of 1997 was instituted against accused Nos.3,4, 5 and 6. Two
\naccused have not yet been arrested, as per case of the prosecution.
\nIncident had taken place in city of Nadiad. Upon evidence, accused
\nNos.4 and 5 have been convicted, whereas, rest of the accused have
\nbeen acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tIt
\nis submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that accused
\nno.4 has expired during the pendency of the appeal before this Court.
\nTherefore, this conviction appeal is left out only for accused no.5
\nand acquittal appeal preferred only for accused Nos.1, 2 and 3.
\nCriminal Revision Application No.578 of 1998 is preferred by the
\noriginal complainant and another Criminal Revision Application No.511
\nof 1998 is preferred for expunging remarks against the Special Public
\nProsecutor.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tWe
\nhave heard learned counsel Mr.J.M.Panchal for the appellants in
\nCriminal Appeal No.630 of 1998 (conviction appeal) and on behalf of
\nrespondents of Criminal Appeal No.803 of 1998 (acquittal appeal) and
\non behalf of the respondents in both Criminal Revision Applications.
\nIt is submitted by them that prosecution has failed to prove the
\ncase, beyond reasonable doubts, against accused No.5. This aspect of
\nthe matter has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court.
\nThere is no live link between accused no.5 and death of the deceased.
\nThere is no evidence at all against accused No.5, much less, by
\neye-witnesses ?  (P.W.Nos.4, 5 and 7) or by P.W.Nos.9, 12 and 13.
\nAll these witnesses have turned hostile.  In fact, there is no
\neye-witness nor panchas have seen the drawing of the panchnama.
\nNeither any of the weapon has been recovered. Even so called test
\nidentification parade as alleged by the prosecution, is not proving
\nthe guilt of accused No.5 and, therefore, judgement and order passed
\nby the Trial Court convicting accused NO.5 deserves to be quashed and
\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tLearned
\ncounsel for the accused submitted that prosecution has given an
\napplication below Exh-75.  Learned counsel for the accused Nos.1,2 &
\n3 submitted that there is no evidence against these accused. No
\nprosecution witnesses have linked them with an offence. Accused No.2
\nis a lady accused and is a wife of business man. Learned counsel for
\naccused Nos.1, 2 & 3 submitted in detail that loan amount taken
\nby them from Natpur Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Nadiad, and detailed payment
\nschedule and withdrawal of the amount has been stated by them and,
\ntherefore, it is submitted that withdrawal of the amount has nothing
\nto do with the payment of the money to the other co-accused. This
\naspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the Trial Court
\nand, therefore, they have been rightly acquitted for all the charges
\nlevelled against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 and, therefore, the order of
\nacquittal may not be altered, quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tLooking
\nto the overall evidence taken on record, no eye-witnesses or
\npanch-witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and even
\nif, the dropped witnesses have been examined, it would not have been
\nhelpful to the prosecution because none of them is an eye-witness. It
\nis also submitted that conversation between husband and wife i.e.
\naccused Nos.2 and 3 is also privileged communication, as per Indian
\nEvidence Act,1872. Therefore, even if payment slip would have been
\nbrought on record, it would not be helpful to the prosecution.
\nLearned counsel for the appellants-accused has also narrated, in
\ndetail, about the evidence recorded and submitted that no error has
\nbeen committed by the Trial Court in acquitting accused Nos.1, 2 and
\n3 and, therefore, Criminal Appeal filed by the State as well as
\nCriminal Revision Application filed by the original complainant
\ndeserve to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tWe
\nhave heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
\nState in Criminal Appeal No.803 of 1998, which has been preferred
\nagainst the acquittal of accused Nos.1, 2 & 3, who has mainly
\nsubmitted that even if the eye-witnesses have turned hostile, then
\nalso, there is  sufficient material on record, which proves the case
\nbeyond reasonable doubt against accused Nos.1, 2 & 3. On the
\nbasis of circumstantial evidence, there is an allegation of
\nconspiracy against the accused Nos.1, 2 & 3. These accused have
\nhatched conspiracy to cause death of the deceased. Likewise, it is
\nsubmitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that though panch
\nwitnesses have turned hostile, with the help of police witnesses,
\npanchnama of scene of offence, seizure of the Maruti Car, recovery of
\nseveral items from the house of accused No.3, offence have been
\nproved beyond reasonable doubt. This aspect of the matter has not
\nbeen properly appreciated by the Trial Court and, therefore, order of
\nacquittal against accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 deserves to be quashed and
\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tLearned
\nAdditional Public Prosecutor submitted that accused Nos. 4 and 5 are
\nthe persons, who are engaged by accused Nos.1, 2 & 3. When
\naccused Nos.4 and 5 have been convicted by the Trial Court, accused
\nNos.1, 2 & 3 ought to have been convicted mainly because they are
\nthe persons, who hatched the conspiracy and hired accused Nos.4 and\n<\/p>\n
5. It is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the
\nTrial Court has passed several remarks against Special Public
\nProsecutor appointed by the State, running from para- 102 onwards in
\nthe impugned judgement and order passed by the Trial Court. In fact,
\nwitnesses were dropped and that is the main reason for criticizing
\nSpecial Public Prosecutor. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
\npointed out from the memo of Criminal Revision Application No.511 of
\n1998 that the dropping of the witnesses have been fully explained and
\nthere are convincing reasons for prosecution for dropping them and,
\ntherefore, remarks passed in impugned judgement and order deserve to
\nbe expunged. Special Public Prosecutor is a Navigator. There is no
\ncomment of malafide against the Special Public Prosecutor. It depends
\nupon wisdom of Special Public Prosecutor, as to who are to be
\nexamined and who are to be dropped. When eye-witnesses are not
\nsupporting the case of the prosecution and when he has opportunity to
\nmeet  the prosecution witnesses, in his best judgement, he has
\ndropped the witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been
\nproperly appreciated by the Trial Court, and, therefore, remarks
\npassed against the Learned Special Public Prosecutor in the impugned
\njudgement and order deserve to be expunged.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tWe
\nhave heard learned counsel appearing for the original complainant in
\nCriminal Revision Application No.578 of 1998, who submitted that the
\nTrial Court has not appreciated the evidence laid down by the
\nprosecution against accused Nos.1 to 3. Though eye-witnesses have
\nturned hostile, there is enough evidence proved beyond reasonable
\ndoubt against accused Nos.1 to 3. In fact, because of conspiracy
\nhatched by accused Nos.1 to 3, accused Nos.4 and 5 were hired to
\ncommit murder of the deceased. Learned counsel for the original
\ncomplainant further submitted that there are no justifiable reason
\nfor dropping witnesses. Had the witnesses  been examined as stated in
\nboth the charge-sheets, truth would have come out and all the accused
\nwould have been adequately punished and, therefore, Criminal Revision
\nApplication may be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tWe
\nhave heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the
\nevidence on record. Learned counsel for both the sides have read and
\nre-read evidence of the various prosecution witnesses. P.W.No.1 is
\nDr.Shantiswarup Ramjidas, who is examined at Exh-16,  is a Doctor at
\nUtkarsh Hospital. It has been stated by him that he had examined
\nPrafulbhai, who was semi-conscious and, three injuries were observed
\nby him as stated in his deposition. He examined Prafulbhai on 31st
\nMay,1996. Incident had taken place on 31st May,1996 at
\n9:45 a.m. in the city of Nadiad. It is stated by this witness that
\nPrafulbhai had stated to him that some persons alighted from Maruti
\nCar and assaulted him. No name of any person was given by Prafulbhai,
\nwho expired later on. No narration of any accused was given to him.
\nThere were three  incised wounds and, thereafter, he advised to shift
\nthe patient to V.S. Hospital or Heart Hospital at Nadiad.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tP.W.No.2\n<\/p>\n
– Kiranbhai Bhikhubhai Patel, is examined at Exh-19, who is a brother
\nof the deceased. Looking to the deposition of this witness, it
\nappears that he is not supporting the case of the prosecution. So far
\nas connection of accused with the offence is concerned, he is not an
\neye-witness at all. He has no knowledge about the accused. He is the
\noriginal complainant, who has filed F.I.R. on 31st
\nMay,1996 at 14-15 hours (Exh-20). Looking to F.I.R., it has been
\nstated that three persons came in Maruti Car and they assaulted
\nPrafulbhai and caused injuries by sharp cutting instrument and,
\nthereafter, ran away. Thereafter, his brother was taken to Mission
\nHospital at Nadiad and, thereafter, his brother was transferred to
\nV.S.Hospital at Ahmedabad. On the basis of hearsay evidence, F.I.R.
\nwas filed.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tP.W.No.3-\n<\/p>\n
Shri Kishan Ishwarbhai Marwadi Exh-21,  is a painter and who has
\npainted number plate, which was found to be fake on the vehicle,
\nwhich is used in committing murder. He identified accused No.4 in
\nTest Identification Parade and as per his deposition, accused No.4
\nhad come for preparing number plate of Maruti Car. Accused No.5 was
\nnot been identified by this witness. Looking to the cross-examination
\nof this witness, it has been stated in cross-examination especially
\nin para-9 that this witness had opportunity to see accused No.4,
\nprior to holding of Test Identification Parade. Even otherwise also,
\naccused No.4 has expired and for accused No.4, Criminal Appeal No.630
\nof 1998 has been abated and, therefore, we are concerned only with
\naccused No.5 in Criminal Appeal No.630 of 1998 and as per deposition
\nof this witness, it has been stated by him that 3 to 4 persons had
\ncome in Maruti Van, but, he has identified only accused No.4. Thus,
\naccused No.5 was not identified by this witness.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tProsecution
\nhas examined P.W.No.4- Nayankumar Chandrakantbhai Amin at Exh-22.
\nLooking to his deposition, he is not supporting the case of the
\nprosecution. It is alleged by the prosecution that this witness is an
\neye-witness. Likewise, prosecution has examined P.W.No.5-
\nJitendrakumar Suryakantbhai at Exh-23. It is alleged by prosecution
\nthat he is an eye-witness, but, he is also not supporting the case of
\nthe prosecution. He knows only  the fact that Prafulbhai was
\nassaulted on 31st May,1996, but, he is not saying anything
\nabout any accused, who has assaulted  the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tLikewise,
\nprosecution has examined Kamleshbhai Indubhai, P.W.No.7 at Exh-27,
\nwho is also alleged to have been an eye-witness, but, he has not
\nsupported the  prosecution case. He has stated in his deposition that
\nthere was a mob. He was present in the mob. Prafulbhai sustained
\ninjuries and taken to the Hospital. With the help of these witnesses
\ni.e. P.W.Nos.4, 5 and 7, nothing is coming out against the accused.
\nProsecution has examined Dr.Dilipbhai Desai, P.W.No.6 at Exh-24, who
\nhas carried out postmortem of the deceased (Exh-26), who has narrated
\nthat the deceased had sustained several incised wounds. All the
\ninjuries were anti mortem and the death is homicidal death. It is
\nstated by learned counsel for the accused that they are not objecting
\nso far as homicidal death is concerned, but, there is no live link
\nbetween the accused and the offence.\n<\/p>\n
16.
\n\t\tThe prosecution has heavily relied upon the deposition of
\nDr.Shivratnama Lalitkumar Vaya – P.W.No.8, examined at Exh-28. This
\nwitness is serving as Assistant Director in Forensic Science
\nLaboratory, Ahmedabad and has stated that accused No.2 was brought to
\nher on 11th June,1996 by the police officer of Nadiad Town
\nPolice Station. Accused No.2 was asked several questions by this
\nwitness including  question that accused No.2 is ready for lie
\ndetector test. It is stated in para Nos.2 and 3 that accused No.2 was
\nnot ready and has never consented for lie detector test. Thus, from
\nPara Nos.2 and 3, it appears that accused No.2 was brought in police
\ncustody and she was not ready to undergo lie detector test. It is
\nstated by this witness that after some assurance given by this
\nwitness to accused No.2, accused No.2 was ready for lie detector test
\non 12th June,1996 on which date also, this  accused No.2
\nwas brought by Police Officer of Nadiad Town Police Station. It is
\nstated by this witness that accused No.2 has given confessional
\nstatement, therefore, much reliance is placed by prosecution stating
\nthat this confession before independent witness, which is dated 12th
\nJune,1996. Exh-32 is a list of questions prepared by this witness for
\nasking the  accused No.2. Exh-33 is a graph, which is recorded during
\nthe lie detector test. Exh-34 is opinion given by P.W.No.8. Looking
\nto deposition given by this witness, it appears that accused No.2 was
\nbrought on 11th June,1996 by police officer of Nadiad Town
\nPolice Station. She was interrogated on the same day as she was not
\nwilling to undergo lie detector test. She was taken back by police
\nOfficer of Nadiad Town Police Station. She was brought with police
\nofficer on 12th June,1996 again,  for lie detector test.
\nFor any reason, she has given statement at Exh-37. Thus,  police
\ncustody was constant from 11th June,1996 to 12th
\nJune,1996. With a view to shield this police custody, she was
\narrested on 12th June,1996. Learned counsel for accused
\nNo.5 has heavily relied upon decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt in the case of Ram Singh V\/s. Sonia and others reported in
\n(2007)2 SCC (Cri.) 1, especially Paras 54, 55 and 57, read as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
?S54.\t\tThe above statement of PW
\n17, therefore, clearly depicts that A-2 was brought by the police to
\nForensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Madhuban, for the  lie detention
\ntest on 24-9-2001 and when she conversed with him the police party
\nwent away. On her saying, A-2 was taken by the police for lunch and
\nthereafter brought back to FSL. As lie detention test (LDT) was not
\npossible on 24th September, A-2 was again brought to FSL
\nby the police on 25th September on which day LDT was
\nconducted.\n<\/p>\n
55.\t\tLearned counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the accused submits that  temporary disappearance
\nof the police from the scene leaving the accused in charge of
\na private individual does not terminate his custody and, therefore,
\nthe extra-judicial confession made by A-2 to PW 17 having been made
\nin police custody is admissible as it is hit by Section 26 of the
\nEvidence Act which provides that any confession made by any person
\nwhile he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in
\nthe immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall not be proved as
\nagainst such person. In support of his submission, reliance has been
\nplaced on Kishore Chand V. State of H.P.\n<\/p>\n
57.\t\tIndisputably, A-2 was
\narrested on 19-9-2001 and on 24th and 25th
\nSeptember when he was taken for LDT he was in police custody and it
\nwas at that point of time he made extra-judicial confession to PW 17
\nat which  point of time police personnel went away from the scene
\ntemporarily. Therefore, in the light of the decision rendered in
\nKishore Chand we are of the opinion that extra-judicial confession
\nmade by A-2 to PW 17  is hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act,
\nit having been made by A-2  while in police custody
\nand, consequently, cannot be admitted into evidence and,
\ntherefore, has to be eschewed from consideration. However, even the
\nexclusion of extra-judicial confession made by A-2 before PW 17 would
\nbe of no help to this accused as we are of the view that the
\nprosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable
\ndoubts against A-2 on the basis of circumstantial evidence enumerated
\nabove as well as extra-judicial confession made by A-2 before PW 48.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\t\tFrom
\nthe aforesaid judgement, it is clear that confessional statement
\ngiven by the accused during police custody is hit by Section 26 of
\nIndian Evidence Act,1872. This aspect of the matter has not been
\nproperly appreciated by the Trial Court. Confessional Statement given
\nby accused during police custody is violative of Section 26 of the
\nIndian Evidence Act,1872, which reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
?S26.\t\tConfession by accused
\nwhile in custody of police not to be proved against him. – No
\nconfession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police
\nofficer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate,
\nshall be proved as against such person.??\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn
\nview of the aforesaid section, Exh-31 was reduced in writing when
\naccused No.2 was in police custody. It is submitted by learned
\nAdditional Public Prosecutor that police was not present, when the
\nstatement was recorded, and, therefore, there was temporary absence
\nof police during recording time of confessional statement and, hence,
\nconfession of accused No.2 can be considered by the Trial Court for
\nconvicting the accused. This contention is not accepted by this Court
\nfor the reason that  as per Section 26 of the Indian Evidence
\nAct,1872, even if police is temporarily away from the room, in which,
\nconfessional statement is given by accused No.2, still accused is
\nsaid to be in police custody. Temporary absenteeism of the police
\nnever ousts, the police custody and, therefore, confession at
\nExh-31 given by accused No.2 during police custody is not helpful to
\nthe prosecution to connect the accused with an offence. Looking to
\nthe evidence at Exh-34, there are several conclusions arrived at by
\nthis P.W.No.8, which had never been stated by accused No.2, neither
\nin any confession nor in reply of the question at Exh-32. How this
\nwitness P.W.No.8 has added facts in Exh-34, while giving her opinion,
\nhas not been explained by this witness.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tAs
\na cumulative effect of these two facts, namely confessional statement
\nmade during police custody and added facts in her opinion at Exh-34,
\nwe are of the opinion that  both these documentary evidences at
\nExh-31 and 34, do not connect the accused with an offence.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tProsecution
\nhas also examined Pravinkumar Indravan Pandya – P.W. No.9 at Exh-35,
\nwho is panch witness of Exh-36 and 37. Looking to the deposition of
\nthis witness, he has not supported the case of the prosecution.
\nLikewise, Bhupendrabhai Babubhai Patel ?  P.W.No.12 was also
\nexamined as panch witness, has also not supported the  prosecution
\ncase. Likewise, Chandubhai Raval ?  P.W.No.13 who was examined as
\npanch-witness at Exh-57 for panchnama of recovery of Maruti Car,  has
\nalso not supported  the prosecution case. Prosecution has also
\nheavily relied upon Indiraben Ambalal Arya ?  P.W.No.11, who is
\nexamined at Exh-42. She is Executive Magistrate, who carried out Test
\nIdentification Parade for identification of accused No.5. It is
\nsubmitted by learned counsel for accused No.5 that for proving
\npanchnama, panch-witness has not been examined. The panchnama is not
\na substantive piece of evidence. Even before holding of this Test
\nIdentification Parade, P.W.No.3 witness had an opportunity to see
\naccused No.4. Looking to the overall evidence on record, this witness
\nis a witness of procedure. This panchnama is not a substantive piece
\nof evidence. It can corroborate the main evidence and as stated
\nhereinabove, no eye-witness has supported case of prosecution and
\nthere is no recovery of any weapon. Other panch witnesses have also
\nturned hostile. No Blood stains on the clothes of the accused, as per
\nthe prosecution. Thus, even if the case of the prosecution is taken
\nat its highest pitch, it is only a corroborative piece of evidence.
\nIn absence of substantive evidence, this panchnama is of little value
\nfor connecting accused No.5 with the  offence, beyond reasonable
\ndoubt. P.W. Nos.5 and 7 have turned hostile, who, according to
\nprosecution, identified accused No.5 and, therefore, this panchnama
\nis not helpful to the prosecution for proving the offence beyond
\nreasonable doubt against accused No.5.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tIt
\nhas been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-accused that
\nin First Test Identification Parade, which was held on 28th
\nApril,1997, P.W.No.3 could not identify accused No.5. Thus, much
\nreliance has been placed upon P.W.No.3- Kishan Ishwarbhai Marwadi and
\nTrial Court has found him a trustworthy witness, as per the
\nconclusion arrived by the Trial Court, who is unable to identify
\naccused No.5. Even as per P.W.No.11, who is Executive Magistrate,
\naccused No.5 was not identified by Kishanbhai Ishwarbhai Marwadi.
\nThis witness, who is found trustworthy by the Trial Court,  is unable
\nto connect accused No.5 with the  offence, whereas, rest of the
\nwitnesses, who have identified accused no.5 namely P.W. Nos.5 and 7
\nhave not supported the  prosecution case. Likewise, P.W.No.4
\nNayankumar Chandrakantbhai Amin has also not identified accused No.5.
\nThus, in Test Identification Parade, which was held on 28th
\nApril,1997, P.W.Nos.3 and 4 could not identified accused No.5. So far
\nas accused No.4 is concerned, Appeal  is abated because of his death
\nduring the pendency of the appeal. Otherwise also, looking to the
\ncumulative depositions of the prosecution witnesses, conviction could
\nnot have been based solely upon Test Identification Parade, which is
\nnot supported by a person, who has identified the accused. It is only
\na corroborative piece of evidence and only with the help of P.W.No.11
\ni.e. Executive Magistrate, who is a witness of procedure,  it cannot
\nbe said that offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt against
\naccused No.5. This aspect of the matter has not been properly
\nappreciated by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
20.\t\tLooking
\nto the deposition given by P.W.Nos.12 and 13 i.e. Bhupendrabhai
\nBabubhai Patel and Chandubhai Raval, they have turned hostile and not
\nsupported the case of the prosecution. They are panch-witnesses of
\npanchnama of scene of offence and panchnama of recovery of Maruti
\nCar. Left out witnesses are police witnesses. It appears that
\nP.W.No.15 Abhay Singh Labubhai Vaghela, who has carried out
\ninvestigation along with P.W.No.16, Prakashchandra Vyas and
\nultimately investigation was carried out by P.W.Nos.17 and 18.
\nLooking to overall depositions of the prosecution witnesses, neither
\neye-witnesses nor panch-witnesses have supported the case of the
\nprosecution, so far as accused No.5 is concerned. P.W.No.11 is
\nExecutive Magistrate and rest of the witnesses are police witnesses
\ni.e. P.W.Nos.15 to 18. As stated hereinabove, the only circumstance
\nagainst accused No.5 is Test Identification Parade on the basis of
\ndeposition of P.W. No.11. This is the highest case of the
\nprosecution. In view of the aforesaid facts and evidence recorded
\nduring the trial, there is no direct evidence against accused No.5
\nconnecting him with the offence.  Looking to the circumstantial
\nevidence against accused No.5 as observed in para-170 of the
\njudgement of the Trial Court that there are eight circumstances, with
\nthe help of which, common intention between accused Nos.4 and 5 is
\ninferred, but, as stated hereinabove, P.W.No.3 is unable to identify
\naccused No.5 in Test Identification Parade. Likewise, P.W.No.4 is
\nalso unable to identify accused No.5. P.W.Nos.5 and 7 have not
\nsupported the case of the prosecution. All these circumstances have
\nnot been appreciated by the Trial Court. Presence of P.W.Nos. 4 and 5
\nat the scene of offence is not proved by the prosecution. Neither the
\nweapon is recovered nor blood stained clothes of accused No.5 have
\nbeen recovered. No witness says that accused No.5 was present at the
\nscene of offence on 31st May,1996 at morning hours.
\nConclusion referred in para-170 is dehors the facts and evidence
\nestablished by the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
21.\t\tLearned
\nAdditional Public Prosecutor submitted that accused No.1 has shown
\nplace of scene of offence which is circumstantial evidence. This is
\nthe only circumstance against accused No.5, but, looking to the
\ntotality of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the place of
\nscene of offence was known to every body. In scene of offence
\npanchnama at Exh-56, wheal marks of vehicle is referred. During
\ninvestigation, Maruti vehicle was recovered, but, wheal marks of this
\nvehicle has not been checked by Investigating Officer, whether could
\nbe of the same vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
22.\t\tIt
\nhas been observed by the Trial Court in para-175 that several
\nconclusion for convicting  accused No.5. As per this conclusion also,
\nit appears that there is no direct evidence against accused No.5. As
\nstated hereinabove, most of the witnesses have not supported the
\nprosecution case except Executive Magistrate and Police Witnesses. As
\nstated hereinabove, accused No.5 was not identified by P.W.Nos.3 and
\n4 and other eye-witnesses have turned hostile. Trial Court has relied
\nupon P.W.No.3, who is found to be trustworthy, but, his evidence is
\nnot connecting accused No.5 with an offence. As per deposition of
\nExecutive Magistrate, P.W.No.11, this witness i.e. P.W.No.3 could not
\nidentify accused No.5. Thus, neither weapon is recovered nor blood
\nstained recovered on the clothes of accused No.5. Eye-witnesses have
\nnot supported the prosecution case, so far as accused No.5 is
\nconcerned. All these circumstances have not been properly appreciated
\nwhile recording conclusion in para-175 in the judgement and order by
\nthe Trial Court. Only on the basis of panchnama of Test
\nIdentification Parade and that too, only with the help of Executive
\nMagistrate much emphasis is given. This is not substantive piece of
\nevidence. It cannot be said that prosecution has proved the offence
\nbeyond reasonable doubt. In view of these facts and reasons,
\nconviction of accused No.5 as held by the Trial Court is hereby
\nquashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
23.\t\tSo
\nfar as accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are concerned, there is an appeal
\npreferred by the State against their acquittal. For these accused
\nalso as stated hereinabove, no eye-witnesses have supported the
\nprosecution case and, therefore, conclusion arrived at by the Trial
\nCourt by appreciating the evidence is absolutely true and correct and
\nno error has been committed by the Trial Court in acquitting accused
\nNos.1, 2 and 3. It is the case of the prosecution that there was
\nconspiracy hatched by this accused and they hired accused Nos.4, 5
\nand other accused, who have not been arrested, but, as stated
\nhereinabove, there is no evidence, connecting accused Nos.1 to 3 with
\nthe offence. There is no live link between accused Nos.1, 2 and 3
\nwith accused Nos.4 and 5. On the contrary, looking to the submission
\nmade by accused No.2, she has given in detail explanation about
\nwithdrawal of the amount for the payment of the loan. It appears that
\naccused No.2 is a wife of business man. There are also entries about
\npayment of loan to Natpur Co-Op.Bank Ltd. Criminal Revision
\nApplication has been preferred by the State bearing Criminal Revision
\nApplication No.511 of 1998 for expunging remarks against learned
\nSpecial Public Prosecutor made by the Trial Court from para 102
\nonwards in the impugned judgement and order. It appears that several
\nlinks are missing in the case of the prosecution. Witnesses sometime
\nsupport the prosecution case and sometime they do not. Learned Public
\nProsecutor is a Navigator of the case. Learned Public Prosecutor has
\nto choose,  which witnesses are to be examined and which witnesses
\nare to be dropped. Looking to the evidence of Prosecution witnesses,
\ngiven one by one, enough explanation is given in Criminal Revision
\nApplication No.511 of 1998 for not examining the witnesses. Even
\nbrother of the deceased has not supported the prosecution. He stated
\nin his deposition that he came to know about the whole incident from
\nother persons and on the hear say evidence, he has lodged the
\ncomplaint. One by one other eye-witnesses have also turned hostile.
\nSome of the witnesses are employees of the accused and, therefore,
\nthey are not examined by learned Special Public Prosecutor. The
\nreasons given in Criminal Revision Application No.511 of 1998 are
\ncogent enough for expunging remarks against the learned Special
\nPublic Prosecutor made by the Trial Court, while deciding the
\nSessions Case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken this
\nCourt to the statement of the witnesses. It has been stated that some
\nof the witnesses have not referred anything about the conspiracy in
\ntheir statement recorded by the police under Section 161. Looking to
\nthe reasons given in para-11 in Criminal Revision Application, it is
\nstated by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that had witness
\nJitubhai Ravjibhai, who is close relative of the deceased, been
\nexamined, he would not have  supported the case of the prosecution.
\nOn the contrary, definitely he could have caused damage to the
\nprosecution case. Likewise, other witnesses have also been referred
\nby the Trial Court, who are not examined because some or the other
\nway, they are connected with the accused as  employees, etc. <\/p>\n
24.\t\tIn
\nview of these circumstances and looking to overall case of
\nprosecution, it was not warranted for the Trial Court to pass remarks
\nagainst the Learned Special Public Prosecutor in para-102 onwards in
\nits judgement and order. Even eye-witnesses, who are P.W.Nos.4, 5 and
\n7, who were close to the deceased, have turned hostile and have not
\nsupported the  prosecution case. In this set of circumstances,
\nlearned Special Public Prosecutor had, wisely not examined rest of
\nthe witnesses, otherwise, whatever evidence collected by the
\nprosecution, could have been destroyed by them, during his
\ncross-examination in the Trial Court. This aspect of the matter has
\nnot been appreciated by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
25.\t\tWe
\nhave also perused, in detail, the  prosecution case and evidence of
\nwitnesses, who are not examined. We are of the opinion that had
\nthese witnesses  been examined by the prosecution, the case of the
\nprosecution could not have been carried further and, therefore,
\nremarks made against learned Special Public Prosecutor in para-156
\nand 175(iii) are hereby quashed and they are expunged. Thus, Criminal
\nRevision Application No.511 of 1998 is hereby allowed and remarks
\nagainst learned Special Public Prosecutor in the aforesaid paras are
\nhereby expunged. Criminal Appeal No.803 of 1998, which is preferred
\nby the State against acquittal of accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 is hereby
\ndismissed for want of proof against accused Nos.1, 2 & 3.
\nProsecution has failed to prove the case against accused Nos.1, 2 &\n<\/p>\n
3. Criminal Revision Application No.578 of 1998 preferred by the
\noriginal complainant, is also hereby dismissed. Looking to these
\nCriminal Revision Applications, State has preferred acquittal appeal
\nagainst accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 and, therefore, so far as these
\naccused are concerned, Criminal Revision Application deserves to be
\ndismissed. Now, the only question left out for this Court is whether
\nthis Court should  remand the matter for rewriting of the judgement,
\non the basis of improper appreciation of the evidence. Looking to the
\nevidence on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has
\nfailed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against accused
\nNo.5. Eye-witnesses have turned hostile and panch-witnesses have not
\nsupported the  prosecution case. In conclusion in para-175 of the
\njudgement and order, much reliance is placed upon P.W.No.3. This
\nwitness is a painter of number plate, which is fake number plate of
\nMaruti Car, but, this witness has not identified accused No.5. There
\nis no ambiguity in his deposition. Even P.W.No.11, who is Executive
\nMagistrate, has also stated that accused No.5 was not identified by
\nP.W.Nos.4 and 5, who are eye-witnesses. Thus, a clear evidence was
\nlaid before the Trial Court and, therefore, we are not inclined to
\nremand the matter to the Trial Court. Likewise, witnesses, who are
\nnot examined by the prosecution, for which, dropping pursis was also
\nfiled. Most of the witnesses, who are dropped, are closely associated
\nwith accused and some of them are employees of the accused. It
\nappears  from the totality of the circumstances of the case, whatever
\nevidence was collected by the prosecution could have been damaged by
\nthe dropped-witnesses, if they would have been examined by learned
\nSpecial Public Prosecutor in his opinion. Even close relatives of the
\ndeceased, who were with deceased, have not supported the  prosecution
\ncase.  About one dozen years have lapsed after occurrence of the
\nincident, and so we are not inclined to remand the matter for
\nreappreciation before the Trial Court and, therefore, Criminal
\nRevision Application is hereby dismissed. Thus, Criminal Appeal
\nNo.630 of 1998 is allowed. As appellant No.1 (accused No.4) has
\nexpired, this Criminal Appeal is abated for him, therefore, this
\nCriminal Appeal survives only for appellant No.2 (accused No.5), and
\nit is hereby allowed. Accused No.5 is hereby acquitted from all the
\ncharges levelled against him.  Appellant No.2 (original accused No.5)
\nwas already granted bail by this Court, therefore, his bail bond is
\nhereby discharged. Criminal Appeal preferred by the State bearing
\nCriminal Appeal No.803 of 1998, is hereby dismissed. Criminal
\nRevision Application No.511 of 1998 is hereby allowed and the remarks
\nmade against learned Special Public Prosecutor in para-102 and
\n175(ii) are hereby expunged. Criminal Revision Application No.578 of
\n1998 preferred by the original complainant is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(C.K.BUCH,J)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(D.N.PATEL,J)<\/p>\n
*dipti<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Farooq vs Mr on 22 October, 2008 Author: C.K.Buch,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Patel,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/630\/1998 22\/ 22 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 of 1998 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 803 of 1998 With CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 511 of 1998 With […]<\/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-218987","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFarooq vs Mr on 22 October, 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\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Farooq vs Mr on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-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=\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-10T12:13:50+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=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Farooq vs Mr on 22 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-10T12:13:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5784,\"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\\\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Farooq vs Mr on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-10T12:13:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Farooq vs Mr on 22 October, 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":"Farooq vs Mr on 22 October, 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\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Farooq vs Mr on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-10T12:13:50+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":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Farooq vs Mr on 22 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-10T12:13:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008"},"wordCount":5784,"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\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008","name":"Farooq vs Mr on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-10T12:13:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/farooq-vs-mr-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Farooq vs Mr on 22 October, 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\/218987","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=218987"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218987\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218987"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218987"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218987"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}