{"id":231967,"date":"2010-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-01T15:58:26","modified_gmt":"2016-04-01T10:28:26","slug":"dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dahyabhai vs The on 25 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Dahyabhai vs The on 25 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/1\/2007\t 23\/ 23\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. 1 of 2007\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 2810 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI \n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nDAHYABHAI\nAMBARAM SOLANKI (CHAMAR) - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nTHE\nSTATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMRUDUL BAROT for BH SOLANKI\nfor\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR KL PANDYA ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for\nOpponent(s) : 1,\n \n\n CRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 2810 of 2008 :\n \n\nAppearance\n: \nMR\nASHISH M. DAGLI  for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR KL PANDYA ASST. PUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 25\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)<\/p>\n
1.0\t\tThe
\nappellants, herein, came to be tried and convicted by Sessions Court,
\nMehsana, in connection with Sessions Case No.125 of 2006, for the
\noffence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 114 of the
\nIndian Penal Code, for committing murder of Jagdishbhai Chhaganbhai
\nSolanki(Chamar)on 10.06.2006, around 8:30 p.m., in the outskirts of
\nVillage : Matrasan, Taluka : Bechraji, on the bank of river Rupen.
\nThe appellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with
\nfine of Rs.1,000\/-, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor a period of three months, by judgment and order dated 8th
\nDecember, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
2.0\t\tThe
\nprosecution case in brief is that, one Chehaji Khodaji Thakor, who
\nwas passing by the place of incident around 8:30 p.m., on the date of
\nincident noticed the appellants assaulting the deceased Jagdishbhai
\nChhaganbhai Solanki(Chamar) with stick.  According to him, he saw the
\noccurrence in the ravines of river Rupen.  He, however, left the
\nplace of incident, without either intervening or raising any alarm.
\nUpon reaching the village, it emerges from his evidence that he came
\nacross one Babuji on the outskirts of the village and told him about
\nhaving seen the incident.  Then, he went to  Pratapji Becharji
\nThakor, the Sarpanch of the village Matasar and told him about having
\nseen the incident, who, in turn informed the Sarpanch of village :
\nKaransagar, Kalabhai Punjabhai Chamar.  According to the witness,
\nthereafter, they went to the place of incident, where the deceased
\nwas lying.  The witness has stated that, at that time, the deceased
\norally indicated that two persons had assaulted him.  On receiving
\nthe information, the Sarpanch of Karansagar village,  also came to
\nthe place, where the deceased was lying.  The deceased was then taken
\nto the hospital in a tractor and then, an F.I.R. was lodged before
\nthe Bechraji Police Station, on  basis of which, an offence was
\nregistered and investigated.  Upon investigation, the police having
\nfound sufficient evidence against the appellants, filed charge-sheet
\nagainst them in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, who,
\nin turn, committed the case to the Court of  Sessions, Mehsana and
\nSessions Case No.125 of 2006 came to be registered.\n<\/p>\n
2.1\t\tThe
\ncharges are framed against the appellants at Exhibit-3, to which both
\nthe accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried  by the trial
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
2.2\t\tUpon
\nconsidering the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court
\nfound that the case against the accused \/ appellants, was proved and
\nrecorded their conviction under Section 302, read with Section 114 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code and sentenced them, as stated in the earlier
\npart of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
3.0\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Mrudul Barot, learned Advocate appears for original accused No.1-the
\nappellant in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2007, whereas Mr. Ashish M.
\nDagli, learned Advocate appears for original accused No.2, the
\nappellant in Criminal Appeal No.2810 of 2008 and Mr. K.L. Pandya,
\nlearned APP, represents the respondent-State, in both the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
4.0\t\tWe
\nhave heard the learned Advocates for the appellants and the learned
\nAPP and have examined the records and proceedings, in the context of
\nthe rival submissions.\n<\/p>\n
4.1
\nThe prosecution has examined eye-witness-Chehaji Khodaji Thakor at
\nExhibit-25. According to this witness, his field is situated on the
\n‘Kacha’ road, between Matasar and Karansagar villages. He used to
\nstay overnight in the field to protect the crop. On the date of
\nincident, he was proceeding towards his field from his home at about
\n8:30 p.m.. At that time there was some light and he saw the
\nappellants beating the deceased. He noticed the occurrence because of
\nthe sounds of beating, coming from that direction. The appellants
\nwere beating the deceased with stick. The witness states that he is
\nnot sure, as to who was holding the stick. He also states that, he
\ndid not notice anything further than this. Thereafter, he went
\ntowards the village and called the Sarpanch. He informed the Sarpanch
\nabout the aforesaid incident and told him to inform the Sarpanch of
\nKaransagar.  The witness further states that the deceased stated that
\ntwo persons had assaulted him. This witness has been throughly
\ncross-examined on the topography of the place of incident and the
\ndistance from the place from where he saw the incident occurring. The
\nwitness states that he was on the top of the ravine and the incident
\noccurred at the bottom. The distance was about 20 feet. This witness
\nfurther states that, thereafter, he went to the  village and informed
\nBabuji about the same, without talking to anyone else. He states
\nthat, he, then gathered the people from the village. In reply to a
\nsuggestion that the FIR was lodged after having consultation with
\nother persons, the witness states that he had asked the Sarpanch to
\ninform the police, and then left for his field.  The persons who went
\nto the place of incident, after it occurred, were, the eye-witness,
\nSarpanch of the village Karansagar-Kalabhai Punjabhai Chamar,
\nSarpanch of the village Matasar-Pratapji Becharji Thakor and brother
\nof the deceased, along with several other persons.\n<\/p>\n
4.2\t\tIt
\nis stated by the witness-Kalabhai Punjabhai Chamar(Exhibit-26) that
\nhe noticed the deceased lying on the slope of the river.  Kalabhai
\nalso states that the deceased told him that the appellants had beaten
\nhim. This witness was subjected to cross-examination as well. He
\nstates that he did not know that the complaint had to be lodged
\nimmediately, therefore, he did not lodge the complaint immediately.\n<\/p>\n
4.3
\nPratapji Becharji Thakor(Exhibit-27) states that he was Sarpanch of
\nMatasar village and was working as such, for about four years, prior
\nto his deposition.  He admitted that the victim was lying near the
\nroad. He also noticed the deceased making some utterances, which he
\ncould not hear, because of the distance between him and the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
4.4\t\tThe
\nfirst contention raised is that, at about 8:30 p.m. in the evening,
\nin the outskirts of the village, there would not be sufficient light
\nwhich could have made it possible for the eye-witness to notice the
\nincident.  The incident has occurred in the lower part of the ravine,
\nat a distance of about 20 to 50 feet and, therefore, the witness
\ncould not have seen the incident. However, we have inquired from the
\nIndian calender, which shows that, that was a day prior to the full
\nmoon day of ‘Jeth’ month as per the Indian calender. Therefore, there
\nwould be sufficient moon light.  Even otherwise, it would not have
\nmade much difference, for the reason that, the people staying in
\nvillage and, particularly, who stay in agriculture fields during
\nnights, are used and trained to work in darkness and, therefore, no
\ninference can be drawn that the witness might not have seen the
\nincident, as it was night time.\n<\/p>\n
4.5\t\tIt
\nis also worth noting that the Panchnama of the place of incident and
\nthe map prepared, would go to show that there were electric light
\npoles, at a distance of about 40 and 150 feet.  Therefore, the
\nargument that the witness could not have seen the incident, cannot be
\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n
4.6\t\tThe
\nsecond fold of the argument is that, the appellants have no motive to
\ncommit the murder of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is
\nmainly based on the evidence of an eye-witness and, hence, the motive
\npales into insignificance.\n<\/p>\n
4.7\t\tThe
\nsecond contention is that, there is discrepancy in ocular evidence
\nand medical evidence, so far as it relates to the injuries found on
\nthe person of the deceased.  According to the eye-witness, he saw the
\nappellants giving blows to the deceased with stick. He has been
\nthroughly cross-examined on the topography and he clearly states that
\nthe ravine is about 20 feet deep and he was on the top of the ravine
\nand, therefore, saw the occurrence.  He admits that the incident
\nlasted for about 10 minutes. However, he neither intervened nor did
\nhe raise any shouts for help.  The explanation tendered by him for
\nnot doing so is that, he was all alone and, therefore, he went away.
\nHe, then, states that he went to the village and, on the way, he met
\nBabuji. He, thereafter, informed the Sarpanch of the village Pratapji
\nBecharji Thakor, about the incident.  Upon getting information, the
\nother witnesses went to the place of incident and noticed the
\ndeceased, lying on the slope of the river.  The deceased was offered
\nwater and he stated that two persons had assaulted him.\n<\/p>\n
4.8\t\tIt
\nis argued that, there is a slight discrepancy, as one of the
\nwitnesses stated that the deceased had given the names of the
\nassailants, whereas the other says that the deceased only said that
\ntwo persons had attacked him. In our view nothing turns on this
\ndiscrepancy because, besides this and dying declaration, there is
\nevidence to connect the  appellants with the crime as would be seen
\nfrom the discussion in the paragraph to follow.\n<\/p>\n
4.9\t\tAnother
\ncontention that is raised is that according to the eye-witness, the
\nincident occurred at the bottom of the ravine and he saw it while
\nstanding on the top of it, whereas the other witnesses have stated
\nthat, they found the victim lying near the ‘Kacha’ road or on the
\nslope of the river.  The panchnama of the place of incident indicates
\nthat the place, where the puddle of blood was found, was at a
\nconsiderable distance from the ravines. Therefore, it is vehemently
\ncontended that there is a discrepancy about the place of incident.\n<\/p>\n
4.10\t\tHaving
\nread the panchnama of place of incident(Exhibit-18), and having read
\nthe evidence of eye-witness Chehaji Khodaji Thakor(Exhibit-25) and
\nwitnesses Kalabhai Punjabhai Chamar(Exhibit-26) and Pratapji Becharji
\nThakor(Exhibit-27), we find that, although, at first glance, there
\nappears to be  inconsistency in the evidence about the place of
\nincident, on close scrutiny we find that it is only a difference in
\nlanguage used for describing the same place and it is clear when the
\nwitness-Kalabhai Punjabhai Chamar(Exhibit-26) says, that he saw the
\ndeceased lying in the slope of the river. This witness, in his
\ncross-examination, admits that by ‘slope of river’, he meant ‘the
\nbank of river’. As can be seen from the map(Exhibit-31), which is
\nprepared on the basis of panchnama of the place of incident, it is
\nclear that the place of incident is in proximity of the river on the
\none side, and the ‘Kacha’ road on the other.  Obviously, therefore,
\nwhen a witness describes the place of incident as ‘slope of the
\nriver’ or ‘the bank of river’ or the ‘ravine’, it means the same
\nplace and in our opinion, there is no discrepancy or any
\ninconsistency in the evidence relating to the place of incident.\n<\/p>\n
4.11\t\tNow,
\ninsofar as the question as to whether there is any discrepancy
\nbetween the ocular evidence and the medical evidence is concerned, it
\nis contended that as per the ocular evidence of the eye-witness, he
\nsaw the appellants assaulting the deceased with stick and after
\nseeing that for some time, he left the place of incident. The sum and
\nsubstance of the evidence of the eye-witness is that he noticed both
\nthe appellants assaulting the deceased with the stick, against this
\nthe medical evidence is that only one injury on the head, which is
\nproved to be fatal and attributable to any hard and blunt substance,
\nwas found on the person of the deceased.  If what was noticed by the
\neye-witness was correct, there ought to have been multiple injuries,
\nattributable to a hard and blunt weapon, would have been found on the
\nperson of the deceased and, therefore, there is inconsistency between
\nmedical evidence and ocular evidence.\n<\/p>\n
4.12\t\tIt
\nis not possible to accept this contention for the reason that, the
\nmedical evidence speaks of one head injury which is proved to be
\nfatal. It is attributable to hard and blunt weapon like stick. The
\nmedical evidence also speaks of several other injuries, in the form
\nof abrasions and bruises with contusions. Such abrasions with
\ncontusions cannot be result of any dragging or simple fall, and
\nwould, therefore, be attributable to a hard and blunt weapon. Thus,
\nwe, upon giving the evidence a harmonious and legal interpretation,
\nfind no discrepancy about the place of incident or between medical
\nevidence and ocular evidence on  the injuries caused to the victim.
\nThe version of the eye-witness that the incident lasted for about 10
\nminutes has to be treated as a mistake in assessment of time or at
\nthe worst an exaggeration with no significance as the witness has
\nsoon after seeing the incident reported the same to Babuji and the
\nSarpanch, involving the appellants.  Principle of res gestae would
\nthus be  attracted.\n<\/p>\n
4.13\t\tIt
\nwas also contended that there was no blood on the stick, which was
\nallegedly discovered at the behest of one of the appellants.  It is
\ntrue that there was no  blood found on the stick, but, that by itself
\nwill not abrogate the ocular evidence of the eye-witness, supported
\nby other contemporaneous material.  The fact that, the eye-witness,
\nwhile coming towards village, immediately informed Babuji and then
\nSarpanch of the village, Pratapji Becharji Thakor, about the fact
\nthat the appellants were assaulting the deceased, would be therefore
\nsignificant and relevant.  The eye-witness had no time to think over
\nand concoct a story and, even otherwise, there is no material on
\nrecord to show that he had any motive to do so, either. This witness,
\nbeing a third party, has neither any grievance against the accused
\nnor any favour towards the victim, his evidence cannot be brush aside
\nlightly, only on the ground of so called inconsistency in the medical
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
4.14\t\tIt
\nis true that the FIR has been lodged late i.e. on the next day, but,
\nthe late filing of FIR pales into insignificance, since soon after
\nwitnessing the incident, the eye-witness has given a clear version of
\nthe incident to one Babuji and the Sarpanch of Matasar-Pratapji
\nBecharji Thakor, implicating both the appellants and that fact stands
\nduly proved.\n<\/p>\n
4.15\t\tThe
\nnext important factor, which requires consideration is that clothes
\nof original accused No.1-Jagdishbhai Khusalbhai Solanki(Chamar), have
\nbeen found to be stained with blood, when they were recovered by
\ndrawing Panchnama(Exhibit-20), and the said blood stains, after
\nchemical analysis by FSL, were found to be of blood group ‘B’, which
\nis found to be the blood group of the deceased. Even the shirt of
\noriginal accused No.2-Dahyabhai
\nAmbaram Solanki (Chamar)was also found to be stained with blood.
\nHowever, upon chemical analysis by FSL, the blood group of those
\nblood stains could not be ascertained.\n<\/p>\n
4.16\t\tThe
\nultimate outcome is that the incident is seen by the
\neye-witness-Chehaji
\nKhodaji Thakor, the clothes of original accused No.1 are found to be
\nstained with the blood of that of the deceased,
\nand there is no discrepancy about the nature of injuries, as
\ndescribed by the eye-witness and the Doctor. The suspicion that, the
\nnight being dark on the day of incident, restricting the vision, also
\ngets ruled out, because by way of contemporaneous material, we have,
\nupon referring to the calender found that it was the day prior to the
\nfull moon day. The fact that, eye-witness informed Babuji and the
\nSarpanch of the village Matasar-Pratapji Becharji Thakor,
\nimmediately, about having seen the incident would wipe out the effect
\nof minor discrepancies indicated.  Even, when the deceased was taken
\nto Dr. Jignesh Rameshchandra Modi(Exhibit-12), the history was given
\nthat the appellants have assaulted the deceased, which was recorded
\nby him in Medical Certificate(Exhibit-13). The evidence proves active
\nparticipation by both the appellants, in the incident, as can be seen
\nfrom the evidence of Chehaji Khodaji Thakor(Exhibit-25) and,
\ntherefore, the trial Court was justified in invoking
\nSection 114 of the Indian Penal Code, while recording conviction. The
\nmedical evidence clearly indicates that the injuries were sufficient
\nenough in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death and are
\npossible with the muddamal ‘stick’. This aspect has gone
\nunchallenged.  The resultant effect is that both the appeals have to
\nfail.\n<\/p>\n
4.17\t\tAt
\nthis stage, Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned Advocate for original
\naccused No.1, has invited attention of this Court to a decision of
\nthe Supreme Court in  Shrishti Narain Jha Vs. Bindeshwar Jha
\nand Ors.  reported in
\n(2009)6 SCC 457, to support the argument that the discrepancy  in the
\nversion of eye-witness and the medical evidence, would result in
\nacquittal.\n<\/p>\n
4.18\t\tThe
\nprinciple of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the
\nabove-mentioned judgment, is not disputed. However, on a perusal
\nthereof, we find that, while recording acquittal, apart from the
\ndiscrepancy in the version of eye-witness and medical evidence,
\nseveral other factors i.e. longstanding enmity between the parties,
\nthe nature of injuries being not attributable to the weapons alleged
\nto be used etc., were also taken into consideration by the Apex
\nCourt, which facts are absent in the case on hand, and therefore, the
\nsaid judgment would not help the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
4.19\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Dagli has further relied on another decision of the Apex Court in
\n Prabir Mondal & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
\nreported in 2010 Cri.L.J. 444.  In that case, the prosecution led a
\nspecific theory that the complainant suffered injuries, while he
\ntried to prevent the accused, by holding the blade of a knife.
\nHowever, no injury was found on the palm of the complainant  by the
\nDoctor, who examined him.  Moreover, the blood
\nstained knife and mat, recovered from the place
\nof incident, were not sent to FSL.  The Apex
\nCourt, therefore, held that the possibility of
\nfabrication cannot be ruled out, and set aside the
\nconviction.\n<\/p>\n
4.20\t\tIn
\nthe instant case, in our opinion, the situation is quite different
\nfrom the one emerging in the case mentioned above.  In the case on
\nhand, the injuries found on the body of the deceased, tally with the
\nweapon alleged to be used by the appellants. Besides that, the
\nversion given by the eye-witness, implicating both the appellants, is
\nconsistent and is also supported      by contemporaneous material
\nand, therefore, this judgment will also not come to the help of the
\naccused persons.\n<\/p>\n
4.21\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Mrudul Barot, learned Advocate for original accused No.2, has also
\ninvited our attention to a decision of division bench of this Court
\nin  Rolia Jamal Ratwa Vs. State of Gujarat
\nreported in 2000(2)GLR 1364,
\nwherein the division bench
\nfound that there were discrepancies in the version
\ngiven by the witness, claiming to be an eye-witness,
\nregarding exact place of occurrence.  In
\nthat case, the Court held that, in view of the diversions and
\ninconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, none of the
\nwitnesses can be said to be an eye-witness, and the appellant was
\ngiven the benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
4.22\t\tIn
\nthe present case, as discussed hereinabove, there is no inconsistency
\nregarding the place of incident, but, it is only the difference in
\nlanguage, which is used by different witnesses to describe the place
\nof incident, which gives an impression that, there is inconsistency
\nabout the place of incident and, hence, this judgment will also not
\ncome to the rescue of the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
5.0\t\tFor
\nthe reasons stated hereinabove, both the appeals fail, and are
\ndismissed. The judgment and order of the Sessions Court, Mehsana,
\ndated 8th
\nDecember, 2006, passed in Sessions Case No.125 of
\n2006, stands confirmed. The
\noriginal accused No.2-Dahyabhai
\nAmbaram Solanki (Chamar) is on bail,
\nhis bail bonds
\nstand canceled. The original accused No.2 shall surrender before the
\nJail \/ competent Authority, within a period of FOUR
\nWEEKS,
\nfrom today.\n<\/p>\n
(A.L.DAVE,
\nJ.) <\/p>\n
(H.N.DEVANI,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
Umesh\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Dahyabhai vs The on 25 February, 2010 Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1\/2007 23\/ 23 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1 of 2007 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2810 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE […]<\/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-231967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDahyabhai vs The on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dahyabhai vs The on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-01T10:28:26+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\\\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dahyabhai vs The on 25 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-01T10:28:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3262,\"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\\\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Dahyabhai vs The on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-01T10:28:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dahyabhai vs The on 25 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dahyabhai vs The on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dahyabhai vs The on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-01T10:28:26+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\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dahyabhai vs The on 25 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-01T10:28:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010"},"wordCount":3262,"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\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010","name":"Dahyabhai vs The on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-01T10:28:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dahyabhai vs The on 25 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231967","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=231967"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231967\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}