{"id":237651,"date":"2011-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011"},"modified":"2017-01-16T08:56:18","modified_gmt":"2017-01-16T03:26:18","slug":"somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Somabhai vs State on 11 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Somabhai vs State on 11 November, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: A.M.Kapadia, Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\/515\/2001\t 24\/ 24\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. 515 of 2001\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSOMABHAI\nHATHIBHAI DAMOR - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMS\nSADHANA SAGAR appointed by Legal Aid Committee for Appellant \nMR KC\nSHAH APP  for Respondent ?  State of\nGujarat \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 26\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \n\t\t\t\tORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)<\/p>\n
1.\tChallenge
\nin this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of  Criminal
\nProcedure (‘the Code’ for short) is to the correctness of the
\njudgment and order dated 20.6.2001 rendered in Sessions Case No. 296
\nof 2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals
\nDistrict at Godhra by which the sole appellant\/accused (‘the accused’
\nfor short) has been convicted for the offences under Sections 307 and
\n452 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and sentenced to
\nsuffer RI for three years and fine of Rs.500\/- i.d., SI for 15 days
\nfor the offence under Section 307 IPC and SI for six months and fine
\nof Rs.500\/- i.d.., SI for 15 days for the offence under section 452
\nIPC.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nprosecution case has disclosed from the FIR and  unfolded during
\ntrial is as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.1.\t\tP.W.2,
\nNisharbhai Hakimbhai has lodged a complaint before Khanpur Police
\nStation wherein inter alia he has alleged that he is running a
\ngrocery shop. Their old shop and house are at village Udava. His
\nbrother Mustak is doing business there.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe
\nday before lodging of the complaint, he came to the house at Udava
\nfrom the shop at Morkhakhara at about 6 O’clock. His mother
\nSaberaben, brother Mustak, Mustak’s wife Rizvana and their son
\nShahrukh were at home. They were sleeping after supper in night at
\nhome. At that time the front door of his house was knocked at about
\n01:30 at night. His mother got up and asked and it was said, ‘I am
\nSoma Hathi and Beedis are to be taken’. Due to fear the door was not
\nopened at night. The knocking at the door was continued and then the
\ndoor was opened. At that time all were got up. As soon as the door
\nwas open, Damor Soma Hathi, Raman Natha and Pratap Natha of Udava
\nrushed in the house. There were scythes in the hands of Soma Hathi
\nand Raman Natha and they were speaking abuses against mother-sister
\nand saying ‘where is the old man? Bring him out and he is to be done
\naway with’. On hearing so, Mustak told ‘my father is at Shhera and
\nnot at home’. They became excited and Some Hathi Damor gave a scythe
\nblow from his hand on the head of Mustak’s four years old son
\nShahrukh and the head was broken. The boy fell down. Raman Natha gave
\nscythe blow on the hand of Mustak and there was a scar on the palm.
\nThe articles of the shop were got scattered. Thereafter they three
\ncame out of the house by shouting and went towards the road. As
\nnothing was available in the night, they started in a bus at 6 O’
\nclock in the morning for going to Lunavada and gave treatment to
\nMustak and his son who were referred to Godhra Civil Hospital wherein
\nthey are admitted. On hearing about the incident by his relatives, he
\nwent to the police station  with Shaikh Wahidbhai and Imranbhai and
\nlodged the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
2.2.\t\tThe
\naforesaid complaint is registered vide CR No.61\/2000 before Khanpur
\nPolice Station initially against three persons. Pursuant to the
\nregistration of the complaint, investigation was started and during
\nthe course of investigation, panchnama of scene of offence was drawn,
\nmuddamal dharia was recovered from accused Somabhai Hathibhai Damor
\nand the injured were sent to hospital for treatment, statements of
\nwitnesses were recorded and at the end of investigation, as
\nsufficient evidence was found against the accused Somabhai Hathibhai
\nDamor charge sheet came to be filed against him for commission of the
\noffence under sections 307, 452, 324, 504, 506 (2) and 114 IPC in the
\nCourt of learned JMFC Lunavada.\n<\/p>\n
2.3.\t\tAs
\nthe offence under Section 307 is exclusively triable by a Court of
\nSessions, the learned JMFC Lunavada committed the case to the Court
\nof Sessions, Panchmahals District at Godhra.\n<\/p>\n
2.4.\t\tThe
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals District at Godhra
\n(‘the trial court’ for short) to whom the case was made over for
\ntrial framed the charge against the accused for commission of the
\noffences as alleged in the charge sheet.\n<\/p>\n
2.5.\t\tTo
\nprove the culpability of the accused, prosecution has examined 14
\nwitnesses, i.e.,  complainant, injured witness, other witnesses,
\netc., and relied upon their oral testimonies.\n<\/p>\n
2.6.\t\tTo
\nbring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has also
\nproduced a number of documents such as complaint, panchnama, medical
\ncertificates, recovery panchnama of dharia, etc., and relied upon the
\ncontents thereof.\n<\/p>\n
2.7.\t\tAfter
\nrecording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the
\ntrial court recorded the further statement of the accused under
\nSection 313 of the Code. The accused denied the case of the
\nprosecution case in its entirety and stated that he is innocent and
\nfalse case has been filed against him. However, he has not led
\nevidence nor did he examine any witness in support of his defence.\n<\/p>\n
2.8.\t\tOn
\nappreciation, evaluation, analysis and scrutiny of the evidence on
\nrecord, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution
\nhas successfully established that the accused has inflicted injuries
\nto witness Mustak and his son Shahrukh and thereby the complicity of
\naccused for commission of the offence under Sections 307 IPC and 452
\nIPC is established. On the said finding the trial court recorded
\nconviction of the accused for commission of the said offences and
\nsentenced to which reference is made in earlier paragraphs of this
\njudgment which has given rise to instant appeal at the instance of
\nthe accused.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tMs.\n<\/p>\n
Sadhna Sagar, learned advocate appointed by Legal Aid Committee for
\nthe accused, has submitted that there are many contradictions in the
\ncomplaint Ex.8 and in the oral testimony of the complainant. There
\nare also contradictions amongst the witnesses. Initially there were
\nthree persons whose names figured as accused but charge sheet is
\nfiled against one person only and the remaining two persons have been
\nshown as witnesses which is an inherent defect and therefore the
\nprosecution case suffers from lot of contradictions and therefore
\nbenefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Therefore, according
\nto her, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and
\nset aside by acquitting the accused by giving benefit. She therefore
\nurged to allow the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tPer
\ncontra,  Mr. K.C. Shah, learned APP for the respondent – State
\nof Gujarat has submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality
\ncommitted by the trial Court in recording the conviction and sentence
\nagainst the accused. Therefore, no interference is called for in the
\nimpugned judgment and order.  He has submitted that the investigating
\nOfficer has in terms deposed that there was no evidence against
\nremaining two persons i.e., Raman Natha Damor and Pratap Natha Damor
\nand therefore no charge sheet is filed against them and they are
\nshown as witnesses. Moreover, those two persons have also deposed
\nagainst the accused and from their evidence also the presence of
\naccused is established.  From the evidence of the injured eye
\nwitness, complicity of the accused has been duly proved. There is no
\ncontradiction in this regard. Therefore he urged to dismissal the
\nappeal by confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThis Court has
\nconsidered the submissions advanced by Ms. Sadhna Sagar,  learned
\nadvocate for the accused and Mr. K.C. Shah, learned APP for the
\nrespondent ?  State of Gujarat and perused the impugned judgment and
\norder. This Court has undertaken a complete and comprehensive
\nappreciation of all vital features of the case and the entire
\nevidence on record, which is read and re-read by the learned
\nadvocates of the parties with reference to broad and reasonable
\nprobabilities of the case. This Court has examined the entire
\nevidence on record for itself independently of the learned Judge of
\nthe trial Court and considered the arguments advanced on behalf of
\nthe accused and infirmities pressed, scrupulously with a view to find
\nout as to whether the trial Court has rightly recorded the order of
\nconviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tTo prove the nature
\nof injuries sustained by the injured witness Mustak and his son
\nShahrukh, the prosecution has examined and relied upon the oral
\ntestimony of P.W.8, Dr. Ashish Vinodchandra  Jaiswal, Ex.17. He has,
\ninter alia, testified that on 5.8.2000 he was on duty at Cottage
\nHospital, Lunavada and at that time  one Mustak and his son Shahrukh
\ncame to him with police yadi. The history given  before him was that
\nSomabhai Hathibhai inflicted dharia blows to them on 5.8.2000 at
\nnight at about 8 P.M. He has examined both of them and also issued
\ncertificates at Exs.18 and 19. So far as certificate at Ex.18 is
\nconcerned, it is in respect of the injury  sustained by Mustak. As
\nper the certificate Mustak had received a cut injury of  7 cm x 1 cm
\non the right index and  middle finger. So far as Ex.19 certificate is
\nconcerned, the said certificate is in respect of the injury sustained
\nby Shahrukh and as per the certificate he has  also received  cut
\ninjury of 12 cm x 3 cm on the forehead and there was also fracture of
\nskull bone.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tIn view of the
\naforesaid evidence and more particularly looking to the seriousness
\nof the injury received by Shahrukh, according to this Court,  if it
\nwould have been inflicted with a little more force, then possibility
\nof death of the  child cannot be ruled out. Therefore, injury caused
\nto Shahrukh attracts the penal provision of Section 307 IPC and for
\ncausing injuries to Shahrukh and Mustak the accused has committed
\nhouse trespass which attracts the penal provision of section 452 and
\ntherefore  the prosecution has been able to establish that the
\naccused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 307 and
\n452 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tHaving held that the
\ninjury caused to Shahrukh attracts the penal provision under Section
\n307 IPC, next question is whether the accused alone is the author of
\nthe injuries to Shahrukh and injured Mustak.\n<\/p>\n
8.1.\t\tIn this
\nconnection, we shall first refer to the evidence of P.W.1, Ramabhai
\nHirabhai, Ex.5. He is a panch witness to the panchnama with respect
\nto recovery of weapon dharia from the accused having found with blood
\nstain. He has deposed as per the contents of the panchnama.
\nTherefore, the prosecution has successfully established the recovery
\nof weapon from the accused.\n<\/p>\n
8.2.\t\tThe prosecution
\nthereafter has examined and relied upon the oral testimony of P.W.2,
\nNisharbhai Hakimbhai, Ex.7. He is the complainant. He has inter alia
\ndeposed that at the time of incident he was at  Morkhakhara and on
\nthe next day when he came to know about the injuries sustained by his
\nbrother and nephew, he went to Cottage Hospital, Lunavada and met
\nthem. They informed that the accused Somabhai Hathibhai came
\nyesterday night and knocked at the door demanding beedi and  match
\nstick but he did not give money and went away.  He was having a
\ndharia and a can of kerosene with him and thereafter he  again came
\nback. He set the room on fire and they raised shouts. As his brother
\nopened the door, the accused inflicted a dharia blow on his hand and
\nalso on the head of his nephew. He has given complaint in this
\nregard. He has identified the signature on the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
8.3.\t\tIn his
\ncross-examination he has also admitted that at the time of lodging
\ncomplaint, he was not in a fit and proper mental state and he has
\nwrongly stated that he was present at the time of incident but in
\nfact he was not present. He has also admitted that in the complaint
\nhe has stated that Raman Natha and Pratap Natha were present with
\ndharia and they also inflicted injury on Mustak and Shahrukh and this
\nwas stated in the complaint as per the information received by him
\nfrom his brother. He has admitted that Raman Natha is a head strong
\nperson and therefore he could not open his shop.\n<\/p>\n
8.4.\t\tOn reappraisal of
\nhis oral testimony, it is seen that though in the complaint Ex.8 the
\ncomplainant had given names of Raman Natha and Pratap Natha, in his
\noral testimony he has not testified anything against them. He has
\nadmitted that at the time of lodging the complaint he was not in a
\nfit and proper state of mind. He has also admitted that he was not at
\nall present at the time of the incident.\n<\/p>\n
8.5.\t\tThe prosecution
\nhas thereafter examined and relied upon the evidence of P.W.3, Mustak
\nHakimbhai, Ex.9. He has inter alia testified that the incident had
\ntaken place on 5.8.2000 at 1.30 at night. The accused came to his
\nhouse in company of Raman Natha and Pratap Natha and they were having
\ndharia with them. Soma Natha asked to open the shop as he wanted
\nBeedi. At that time Raman Natha inflicted blows with dharia and
\nthereafter Soma Natha inflicted dharia blow on the head of his son.
\nHe has not stated anything about Pratap Natha having inflicted any
\ninjury to him or his son.\n<\/p>\n
8.6.\t\tThe prosecution
\nhas thereafter examined and relied upon the oral testimony of P.W.4,
\nKankabhai Rupabhai, Ex.10. He has inter alia testified that at the
\ntime of incident he was at his residence. Mustak has shouted for him
\nand therefore he went there. He saw the accused with dharia. He asked
\nthe accused why he was quarrelling. The accused told him that Mustak
\nhas not given Beedi to him and thereafter he told Mustak to give him
\nbeedi and Mustak  gave him Beedi. Thereafter Mustak told him that the
\naccused has given him dharia blow and he has given dharia blow to his
\nson also.\n<\/p>\n
8.7.\t\tThe prosecution
\nhas thereafter examined and relied upon the evidence of P.W.5,
\nSaberaben Salimbhai, Ex.11. She is the mother of injured Mustak and
\ngrand mother of injured Shahrukh. At the time of incident she was
\nawaken and the accused came to her house for beedi. He was having
\ndharia and a can of kerosene. He ran away and again he came back.
\nThereafter he has set fire near the door with kerosene. Thereafter
\nthe accused inflicted blow to his son Mustak and her grand son
\nShahrukh.\n<\/p>\n
8.8.\t\tThe prosecution
\nhas thereafter examined and relied upon the evidence of P.W.6,
\nSoniben Nathabhai, Ex.12. She is the mother of Raman Natha and Pratap
\nNatha. She has stated that the police have come to arrest Raman Natha
\nand Pratap Natha as their names were there in the complaint but as
\nthe villagers assembled there told that they were not there at that
\ntime of incident, they were not arrested and no charge sheet is filed
\nagainst them. She has not seen the incident of inflicting injury by
\nthe accused to Mustak and his son Shahrukh.\n<\/p>\n
8.9.\t\tThe prosecution
\nhas thereafter examined and relied upon the evidence of P.W.7,
\nRamanbhai Nathabhai, Ex.13 and P.W. 10, Pratap Natha, Ex.23. Their
\nevidence is identical. They have stated that they were informed by
\ntheir mother Soniben that the accused is standing near the house of
\nMustak and therefore both of them should go there and save Mustak and
\ntherefore they went there. When they went there to save Mustak  they
\nsaw that the accused had broken open the gate of house of Mustak and
\non the door he had set fire and the accused had inflicted dharia blow
\nto Mustak and to his son Shahrukh.\n<\/p>\n
8.10.\t\tAll the above
\nreferred to witnesses were cross-examined at length by the learned
\nadvocate for the accused but nothing substantial could be brought out
\nwhich would impeach the credibility of their evidence.\n<\/p>\n
8.11.\t\tOn reappraisal of
\ntheir evidence, it is clear that through inadvertent mistake, the
\ncomplainant had given names of Raman Natha and Pratap Natha in the
\ncomplaint as assailants along with Somabhai Hathibhai Damor but in
\nfact they were not the assailants and they came at the scene of
\nincident to rescue Mustak upon the persuasion of P.W.6, Soniben,
\ntheir mother. In fact they were not present there. The Investigation
\nOfficer during the course of investigation found that the complainant
\nhas falsely named Raman Natha and Pratap Natha as assailants along
\nwith the accused Soma Hathi and therefore not only charge sheet was
\nnot filed against them but they were shown as witnesses and they in
\nterms deposed as to what had happened at the time of incident and
\ndeposed that Soma Hathi was the assailant. In the medical certificate
\nissued by  P.W.8, Dr. Ashish Vinodchandra Jaiswal, has recorded that
\nMustakbhai, the injured witness, who is also the father of injured
\nShahrukh, has stated that Soma Hathi is the assailant.  P.W.4,
\nKankabhai, Ex.10, who came to the house of injured Mustak on hearing
\nshouts has in terms stated that at that time Soma Hathi was present
\nat the house of Mustak and when he inquired Mustak as to why he is
\nmaking quarrel, he told that Mustak was not giving beedi  to him.
\nThereafter when he asked Mustak about the incident, Mustak informed
\nhim that Soma Hathi inflicted dharia blows and caused injuries to him
\nand his son Shahrukh. P.W.5, Saberaben, Ex.11, who is mother of
\nMustak and grandmother of Shahrukh, has also deposed that Soma Hathi
\ninflicted injuries to her son and grandson with dharia. The
\ncomplainant has also in his deposition stated that he has given names
\nof Raman Natha and Pratap Natha  as assailants as told by his brother
\nbut in his deposition, he has not stated anything against Raman Natha
\nand Pratap Natha. Therefore, from the over all evidence on record, it
\nis clear that the real assailant of Mustak and Shahrukh is Soma Hathi
\nand none else and therefore, we find that the trial court has reached
\nto the right conclusion that Soma Natha is the person who has
\ninflicted injuries to Mustak and Shahrukh.\n<\/p>\n
8.12.\t\tIn view of the
\naforesaid state of affairs, the contention of Ms. Sadhna Sagar,
\nlearned advocate for the accused that in the complaint along with the
\naccused, names of two other persons, Raman Natha and Pratap Natha
\nwere given but no charge sheet came to be filed against them and
\ntherefore benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and he may be
\nacquitted,  has no substance. So far as the witnesses are concerned,
\nthey are consistent so far as the injury caused by the accused to
\nboth the victims.  Injured Mustak tried to implicate Raman Natha as
\nthe assailant who has inflicted injury on his hand. But  looking to
\nthe medical certificates issued by  P.W.8, Dr. Ashish Vinodchandra
\nJaiswal, before whom Mustak had the opportunity to first disclose the
\nnames of assailants, it is seen that Mustak has named only Soma Hathi
\nas the assailant. In addition to this, as per the evidence of P.W.4,
\nKankabhai also Mustak told him that Soma Hathi had inflicted injuries
\nto him and his son. Moreover, when Kankabhai came running to the
\nhouse of Mustak, he saw only Soma Hathi at his house and neither
\nRaman Natha nor Pratap Natha was present there. As per the complaint,
\nSoma Hathi, Raman Natha and Pratap Natha were assailants but
\ninvestigating officer has recovered dharia from  Soma Natha only. If
\nas per the complaint all the three assailants had inflicted injuries,
\nthere could have been more than one injury each on both the injured
\nvictims. But the record shows that only one injury each was sustained
\nby both the injured persons. Therefore, this Court finds that the
\nstatement made by Mustak in his deposition about the involvement of
\nRaman Natha in the assault is nothing but a figment of his
\nimagination and the trial court has rightly not believed the said
\npart of his deposition. Therefore, the submission made by Ms. Sadhna
\nSagar for giving benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitting him
\nof the offences with which he was charged, contains no merits and
\nhence it is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tIn view of the
\nclinching and satisfactory evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
\ncomplicity of the accused in commission of the offence of inflicting
\ninjuries to injured Mustak and his son Shahrukh has been duly
\nestablished. Suffice it to say that the trial Court has given cogent
\nand convincing reason for convicting the accused for commission of
\noffences under Sections 307 and  452 IPC and Ms. Sadhna Sagar,
\nlearned advocate for the accused could not dislodge the said reasons
\ngiven by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tWe find ourselves
\nin complete agreement with the finding, ultimate conclusion and the
\nresultant order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial
\nCourt, as according to us, no other finding, conclusion and order, is
\npossible except the one reached by the trial Court, which is required
\nto be affirmed by us.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tSeen in the above
\ncontext, there is no reason or justifiable ground to interfere with
\nthe impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by
\nthe trial Court, and as the appeal lacks merit, it deserves to be
\ndismissed by confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tFor the foregoing
\nreasons, the appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed.
\nResultantly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
\n20.6.2001 rendered in Sessions Case No.296 of 2000 by the learned
\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals District at Godhra, is hereby
\nconfirmed and maintained.\n<\/p>\n
(A.M.Kapadia,J.)<\/p>\n
(Z.K.Saiyed,J.)<\/p>\n
…\n<\/p>\n
(karan)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Somabhai vs State on 11 November, 2011 Author: A.M.Kapadia, Honourable Z.K.Saiyed, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/515\/2001 24\/ 24 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 515 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237651","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSomabhai vs State on 11 November, 2011 - 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\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Somabhai vs State on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-16T03:26:18+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Somabhai vs State on 11 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T03:26:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3545,\"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\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Somabhai vs State on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T03:26:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Somabhai vs State on 11 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Somabhai vs State on 11 November, 2011 - 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\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Somabhai vs State on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-16T03:26:18+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Somabhai vs State on 11 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T03:26:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011"},"wordCount":3545,"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\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","name":"Somabhai vs State on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T03:26:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somabhai-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Somabhai vs State on 11 November, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/237651","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=237651"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237651\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237651"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237651"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237651"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}