{"id":226573,"date":"2008-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008"},"modified":"2018-07-13T01:59:41","modified_gmt":"2018-07-12T20:29:41","slug":"vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Vajabhai vs State on 14 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Vajabhai vs State on 14 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&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\/1771\/2005\t 5\/ 12\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. 1771 of 2005\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\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\nVAJABHAI\nDAHYABHAI RATHOD - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 1 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nNITIN M AMIN for Appellant(s) : 1 - 4. \nMR KC SHAH, APP for\nOpponent(s) :\n1, \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 J.C.UPADHYAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 14\/11\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA)<\/p>\n
The
\n\tchallenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order rendered by
\n\tlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nadiad on dated
\n\t19.7.2005 in Sessions Case No.89 of 2001. By virtue of the impugned
\n\tjudgment and order, the learned trial Judge convicted all the four
\n\tappellants, who were original accused in the aforesaid sessions case
\n\tfor the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376
\n\tr\/w.Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (??IPC?”, for short) and
\n\teach accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5
\n\tyears and fine of Rs.2000\/-, in default to further undergo simple
\n\timprisonment for one year for the offences punishable under Sections
\n\t363 and 366 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and
\n\tfine of Rs.5000\/-, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment
\n\tfor 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.
\n\tThe appellants ?  accused were acquitted from the charge of offence
\n\tpunishable under Section 201 r\/w.Section 114 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tprosecution case in nutshell is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\t\tdated 3.7.2000, at about 11 p.m., during night hours, Rashmi, aged
\n\t\tabout 4-1\/2 years was sleeping on a cot along with her parents in
\n\t\tthe house situated at village Mithanamuvada, Tal.Thasra,
\n\t\tDist.Kheda. It is the case of the prosecution that at that time the
\n\t\tfour accused persons kidnapped Rashmi, with intent to rape her and
\n\t\tshe was taken to outskirts of the village, near a pond and all the
\n\t\tfour accused persons committed sexual intercourse on the girl
\n\t\tRashmi and gang-raped her. It is further the case of the
\n\t\tprosecution that with a view to destroy the evidence, the accused
\n\t\tpersons removed all the clothes from the body of Rashmi and they
\n\t\twashed their own clothes. Mangalbhai Rathod, father of Rashmi
\n\t\tlodged FIR in connection with this offence in Thasra Police
\n\t\tStation. The FIR was registered and the police commenced
\n\t\tinvestigation. Statements of material witnesses were recorded.
\n\t\tNecessary panchnamas were drawn in presence of Panch witness.
\n\t\tClothes of the accused persons were recovered by drawing panchnama.
\n\t\tMedical examination of Rashmi was conducted and necessary
\n\t\tcertificates were obtained by the police. Clothes etc. were sent to
\n\t\tForensic Science Laboratory (??FSL?”, for short) for due
\n\t\tanalysis. Accused persons were arrested. After completion of the
\n\t\tinvestigation, the police filed chargesheet in the Court of learned
\n\t\tJMFC, Thasra. As the offence was exclusively triable by the Court
\n\t\tof Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court
\n\t\tof Sessions, Kheda at Nadiad, which was registered as Sessions Case
\n\t\tNo.89 of 2001 and the said case came to be transferred to the Court
\n\t\tof learned trial Judge for trial in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\t\tlearned trial Judge framed charge at Exh.30 against all the four
\n\t\taccused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 363,
\n\t\t366, 376, 201 r\/w.Section 114 of the IPC. As the accused did not
\n\t\tplead guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution adduced its
\n\t\toral and documentary evidence. After the prosecution completed its
\n\t\tevidence, the learned trial Judge recorded further statements of
\n\t\tthe accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
\n\t\tProcedure, wherein the accused persons denied generally all the
\n\t\tallegations levelled against them and they submitted that they were
\n\t\tfalsely implicated in this case.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\t\tlearned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record and
\n\t\tafter considering the arguments advanced on behalf of both the
\n\t\tsides, delivered the impugned judgment and he was pleased to
\n\t\tconvict all the four accused persons for the offences punishable
\n\t\tunder Sections 363, 366, 376 r\/w.Section 114 of the IPC and awarded
\n\t\tthe sentence as hereinabove described in this judgment. By virtue
\n\t\tof the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge granted benefit
\n\t\tof doubt to all the accused persons in connection with commission
\n\t\tof offence punishable under Section 201 r\/w.Section 114 of the IPC
\n\t\tand they were acquitted from the charge of said offence. Hence, the
\n\t\toriginal accused persons preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
During
\n\tthe course of the argument, learned advocate Mr.Amin for the
\n\tappellants submitted that considering the entire oral and
\n\tdocumentary evidence on record, the prosecution miserably failed to
\n\tprove that all or any of the accused persons are involved in this
\n\toffence. It is submitted that in the FIR, no names or any
\n\tdescription of the accused persons are mentioned. It is submitted
\n\tthat even the fact is not disputed that Rashmi, aged 4-1\/2 years was
\n\tsubjected to sexual intercourse, yet, the very vital issue would be
\n\tthe proof regarding involvement of the accused persons in connection
\n\twith this crime. There is no reliable evidence worth the name,
\n\tfixing the identity of the accused persons. Even there is no
\n\tmaterial whatsoever on record to show as to how the accused persons
\n\tcame to be arrested in connection with this offence by the
\n\tInvestigating Police Officer. That the prosecution relied upon the
\n\tdeposition of Rashmi (PW-11) for fixing the identity of the accused
\n\tpersons. It is submitted that the incident occurred on dated
\n\t3.7.2000, during night hours. The deposition of Rashmi before the
\n\ttrial Court was recorded on dated 21.2.2005, after about 4-1\/2 years
\n\tfrom the date of the incident, for the first time in the Court.
\n\tRashmi stated that she was raped by four accused persons, who were
\n\tpresent in the Court. Her police statement was not recorded by the
\n\tpolice. Even her deposition regarding the so-called identification
\n\tof the accused for the first time in the Court, is very shaky. As
\n\tper the prosecution case, four unknown accused persons raped her,
\n\tthat too during night hours and there is no evidence whatsoever to
\n\tcome to the conclusion that in the house, where Rashmi was sleeping,
\n\tthere was any electric light on, or that there was availability of
\n\tlight at the place where the incident occurred. It is submitted that
\n\tthe prosecution relied upon the panchnama to the effect that one of
\n\tthe appellant ?  accused person Vajabhai in presence of Panchas
\n\ttook the Panchas and Investigating Police Officer to the place of
\n\tincident. However, both the Panchas in connection with the
\n\tpanchnama, Exh.37 turned hostile. Even the deposition of
\n\tInvestigating Police Officer in connection with this panchnama,
\n\tExh.37, is not cogent and convincing. Virtually, the panchnama,
\n\tExh.37 can be branded as ?Sdemonstration panchnama??. It is
\n\toutright not admissible in evidence. The prosecution relied upon one
\n\tsolitary piece of evidence that the blood group of Rashmi happened
\n\tto be of ?SB?? Group and on the undergarment of appellant ?
\n\taccused Arvindbhai Keshavbhai, blood mark showing the blood Group
\n\t?SB?? was found by the FSL. However, as a matter of fact,
\n\tconsidering the FSL report and especially the serological report, it
\n\tis crystal clear that even the blood group of appellant ?  accused
\n\tArvindbhai Keshavbhai is ?SB??. Even no reliance can be placed
\n\tupon the solitary piece of evidence. It is submitted that all the
\n\taccused persons are alleged to have raped Rashmi, aged about 4-1\/2
\n\tyears. But, considering their medical evidence, no injury whatsoever
\n\twas found either on their body or even on their private part. Thus,
\n\teven the fact regarding Rashmi having sexually abused and was raped
\n\tis accepted, yet, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the very
\n\tinvolvement of the accused persons in connection with this offence.
\n\tTherefore, it is submitted that the appeal be allowed and the
\n\timpugned judgment and order delivered by the learned trial Judge
\n\trecording conviction of the accused be set-aside and the appellants
\n\t?  accused be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tAPP Mr.Shah for the respondent ?  State vehemently opposed this
\n\tappeal and submitted that considering the deposition of victim
\n\tRashmi, she clearly identified all the accused persons during the
\n\tcourse of her deposition before the trial Court. There is no reason
\n\tto doubt her testimony. That considering the deposition of witness
\n\tRameshbhai Rathod, Exh.46, who happened to be the uncle of Rashmi,
\n\the deposed that on the day on which the incident occurred, all the
\n\tfour accused persons had come to the house of Rashmi, to meet her
\n\tfather Mangalbhai, at about 5 p.m. in the evening and they met
\n\tMangalbhai and thereafter they left. It is submitted that Rashmi?”s
\n\tfather Mangalbhai and all the four accused persons were working in
\n\tthe field of Pravinbhai and thus, the accused persons were not
\n\tunknown to the family of Rashmi. It is further submitted that
\n\tconsidering the evidence in form of FSL report and especially the
\n\tblood marks on the garments of the accused persons, the prosecution
\n\tsuccessfully adduced corroborative piece of evidence connecting the
\n\taccused with the crime. That the medical evidence clearly reveals
\n\tthat Rashmi, aged about 4-1\/2 years was sexually abused and was
\n\traped. Thus, it is submitted that the appeal be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\thave given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on
\n\tbehalf of both the sides. From the submissions made on behalf of the
\n\tappellants by learned advocate Mr.Amin and perusing the relevant
\n\tevidence adduced in sessions case before the trial Court, the moot
\n\tquestion which arises is regarding the identification of the accused
\n\tpersons. Considering the overall evidence on record and especially
\n\tthe report regarding medical examination of Rashmi, it cannot be
\n\tdenied that she was not sexually abused or that the factum of rape
\n\thaving been committed on her was not proved by the prosecution. But,
\n\tre-appreciating the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that
\n\tthere is substance in the arguments advanced by learned advocate
\n\tMr.Amin for the appellants that the evidence adduced by the
\n\tprosecution regarding the identity of the accused linking them with
\n\tthe crime, is shaky and cannot be termed as an evidence beyond any
\n\treasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
Apart
\n\tfrom the fact that in the FIR lodged by Mangalbhai, the father of
\n\tthe victim Rashmi, the name of any accused is not mentioned, yet,
\n\tconsidering the deposition of Investigating Police Officer ?
\n\tDy.S.P. Mr.Damor, Exh.109, he deposed that he arrested all the four
\n\taccused persons in connection with this crime on dated 7.7.2000.
\n\tAgain, apart from the fact as to how and on what basis the accused
\n\tcame to be arrested on dated 7.7.2000 in connection with the FIR
\n\tlodged by Mangalbhai on dated 4.7.2000 against unknown accused
\n\tpersons, the fact remains that Investigating Police Officer nowhere
\n\tstated in his deposition about any Test Identification Parade
\n\t(??TIP?”, for short) having been conducted in presence of
\n\twitnesses or the victim of the accused persons subsequent to their
\n\tarrest.  Admittedly no TIP was conducted.\n<\/p>\n
There
\n\tis no rule of evidence that without any prior TIP, if an accused is
\n\tidentified for the first time by any witness in open Court, during
\n\tthe course of his deposition, said evidence becomes inadmissible or
\n\tthat per se it becomes doubtful evidence. The Court may rely upon
\n\tsuch evidence regarding the identification of the accused, provided
\n\tthe testimony of such witness inspires confidence of the Court and
\n\tis cogent and convincing and is free from any reasonable doubt. In
\n\tthe instant case, the incident occurred on dated 3.7.2000 during
\n\tnight hours in darkness and the accused persons came to be
\n\tidentified for the first time in open Court by victim Rashmi, who
\n\twas then aged about 4-1\/2 years, during the course of her deposition
\n\ton dated 21.2.2005 i.e. approximately about 4-1\/2 years from the
\n\tdate of occurrence. As per the prosecution case, the incident
\n\toccurred during night hours. There is no evidence whatsoever to show
\n\tthat there was availability of electric light in the house of the
\n\tvictim when she was kidnapped from her house or the place where the
\n\tincident of rape occurred. Thus, it cannot be said that the victim
\n\thad opportunity to identify all or any of the accused persons during
\n\tthe night hours. In this connection, it would be necessary to
\n\tconsider the deposition of Rashmi Mangalbhai, Exh.54. According to
\n\ther, she was raped by four unknown persons. She stated that she
\n\tcannot identify the persons who raped her. However, she stated that
\n\tall the four persons, who raped were present in the Court. She
\n\tstated that after the incident she was left alone and while she was
\n\tcoming  towards her house, one person who belonged to the village,
\n\tmet her and he brought her to her house. In her cross-examination,
\n\tshe stated that she was told by her mother that today she was
\n\trequired to go to Court for her testimony. She further stated that
\n\tshe inquired to her mother as to what she should speak. In her
\n\tcross-examination, she stated that her parents are working as
\n\tlabourers in the field of Pravinbhai and that all the four accused
\n\tpersons are also working in the same field of Pravinbhai. She
\n\tfurther stated that the accused persons used to come to her house
\n\tfor tea. Under such circumstances, considering her deposition, it is
\n\ttrue that during the course of her deposition, she stated that the
\n\tpersons who raped her were present in the Court. However, she
\n\tfurther stated that she was brought to the Court by her mother and
\n\tshe was told by her mother that she was required to give her
\n\ttestimony and thereupon, she had also inquired from her mother as to
\n\twhat she has to speak. Moreover, considering her deposition, it
\n\ttranspires that as a matter of fact, the accused persons were not
\n\tunknown to her. Both her parents and accused persons were working as
\n\tlabourers in the field of Pravinbhai and even prior to the incident
\n\tthe accused persons used to come to her house. Despite this there is
\n\tnothing on record that when her parents and uncle inquired to her as
\n\tto who committed such mischief with her, she gave names of the
\n\taccused persons or that she told them that the persons, who raped
\n\ther had often come to their house.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.1\tIn
\nthis connection considering the deposition of Mangalbhai,\tthe father
\nof the victim and the first informant, Exh.42, he stated\tthat one
\nSomabhai brought Rashmi to his house. Nothing is\temerging from his
\ndeposition that either before he lodged the\tFIR or after the lodgment
\nof FIR, Rashmi ever told him that the\tpersons who caused mischief
\nwith her, were not unknown and\tthey had often come to their house.
\nThe deposition of Kailasben, \tmother of Rashmi runs on the same line.
\nConsidering the\tdeposition of witness Somabhai Parmar, Exh.48, he
\nstated that at \tabout 5 a.m. in the morning, while he was going to
\nanswer\tnature’s call, near the pond of their village, at that time
\nhe\theard shouting of\tdaughter of Mangalbhai and he brought her to
\n\ther house.\tConsidering the deposition of witness Rameshbhai
\n\tRathod,\tExh.46, who happens to be the uncle of Rashmi, he \tstated
\nthat\ton the day of incident, at about 5 p.m. in the evening \tthe four
\naccused persons had come to the house of  his\tbrother Mangalbhai and
\nafter tea etc. the accused had left the\thouse of Mangalbhai. However,
\nit is stated  that during\tnight hours, he did not see any person
\ncoming in the house. The \tprosecution\tdeclared the witness as hostile
\nwitness. During the \tcross-\texamination
\nmade on behalf of  the prosecution,  he stated\tthat  \tin his police
\nstatement he had stated before the police that\taccused Vajabhai  had
\n come to his house  during   night. He\talso \tstated  that  he
\nwas knowing the accused   persons. However,\tin \this cross-examination
\non  behalf  of  the defence, he stated \tthat \twhen he woke-up from
\nhis sleep, only at  that time he\tcame to know that Rashmi was not in
\nher cot. Under such\tcircumstances, considering    the  overall
\ntestimony  of\twitness\tRameshbhai, it   becomes  clear   that
\nbasically   the\taccused persons were not unknown to family of the
\nvictim.\tRameshbhai stated that on the day of the incident, at about
\n5\tp.m. in the evening, accused had come to their house and they\thad
\ntaken tea and then they left. However, he specifically stated\tthat
\nduring night hours nobody had come.  As stated above, even\tRashmi
\nstated in her deposition that accused persons used to\tcome to her
\nhouse. Again, considering the deposition of\tRameshbhai, the fact
\nwhich emerges is that till the accused\tpersons came to be identified
\nby Rashmi, after about 4-1\/2 years\tfrom the date of the incident,
\nduring the course of her\tdeposition before the trial Court, she
\nnowhere stated either to\ther parents or to her uncle Rameshbhai that
\nthe persons who\traped her were not unknown, but, they were accused
\npersons.\n<\/p>\n
7.2\tAs
\na piece of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution relied\tupon the
\npanchnama, Exh.37 and perusing the panchnama, it\ttranspires that one
\nof the accused persons named Vajabhai\tDayabhai took the Panchas and
\nthe Police Officer to the place of\tincident and it is stated in the
\npanchnama that acccused\tVajabhai stated that this is the place where
\nthey did mischief\twith Rashmi. However, both the Panchas Idrisali
\nSaiyed and \tMohamed\tVora have been examined by the prosecution in
\nthis \tcase as witnesses and they both did not support the contents of
\n\tthe panchnama and they had turned hostile witnesses.\tInvestigating
\nOfficer Dy.S.P. Mr.Damor in his deposition,\tExh.109 only briefly
\nstated that accused Vajabhai had \ttook them \tto the\tplace of
\nincident\tand the panchnama was drawn, which \tis produced at Exh.37.
\nNo other details are given by the\tInvestigating Officer during  the
\ncourse of his deposition in\tconnection   with     the    panchnama,
\nExh.37. Considering the\tpanchnama, Exh.37 as it is, we see
\nconsiderable force in the\targuments advanced by learned advocate
\nMr.Amin that\tvirtually the panchnama can be termed as
\n?Sdemonstration\tpanchnama??, which is not admissible in evidence,
\nas per law.\n<\/p>\n
7.3\tSimilar
\nis the situation, if we consider the FSL report and\tespecially the
\nserological report. FSL report reveals that the\tblood group of Rashmi
\nis Group ?SB??. So far as blood Group ?SB?? is \tconcerned, it
\nfurther reveals that there were blood marks on one\tundergarment of
\nappellant ?  accused Arvindbhai Kesharbhai\tand the FSL report
\nfurther revealed that the blood marks were of\tGroup ?SB??. However,
\nconsidering the report it further transpires\tthat the blood group of
\naccused Arvindbhai himself was of\tGroup ?SB??. The blood marks
\nwhich were there on the pant,\tunderwear and undergarments of other
\naccused persons were\tanalysed by the FSL and they turned out to be of
\nGroup ?SA?? \twhich is not  matching with Group ?SB?? of the
\nvictim Rashmi. \tThus, it cannot be said that by circumstantial
\nevidence, the \tnexus between the crime and the accused persons can be
\nsaid to \thave\tbeen duly established.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tlight of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion
\n\tthat the prosecution failed to establish the involvement of the
\n\taccused persons in this offence. Under such circumstances, the
\n\tappeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order
\n\trecording conviction of the appellant ?  accused persons deserves
\n\tto be set-aside.\n<\/p>\n
For
\n\tthe foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the
\n\tappellant ?  accused persons recorded by the learned trial Judge in
\n\tconnection with the commission of the offences punishable under
\n\tSections 363, 366, 376 r\/w.Section 114 of the IPC in Sessions Case
\n\tNo.89 of 2001 is set-aside. The appellants -accused are ordered to
\n\tbe acquitted. They be forthwith released from jail, if no longer
\n\trequired in any other case. Fine, if paid, be refunded to them.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(A.L.DAVE,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
(binoy)\t<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Vajabhai vs State on 14 November, 2008 Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1771\/2005 5\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1771 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA ======================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-226573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVajabhai vs State on 14 November, 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\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vajabhai vs State on 14 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-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=\"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-12T20:29:41+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vajabhai vs State on 14 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-12T20:29:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3225,\"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\\\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Vajabhai vs State on 14 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-12T20:29:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vajabhai vs State on 14 November, 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":"Vajabhai vs State on 14 November, 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\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vajabhai vs State on 14 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-12T20:29:41+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vajabhai vs State on 14 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-12T20:29:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008"},"wordCount":3225,"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\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008","name":"Vajabhai vs State on 14 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-12T20:29:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vajabhai-vs-state-on-14-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vajabhai vs State on 14 November, 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\/226573","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=226573"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226573\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}