{"id":58535,"date":"2010-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-10-08T21:50:27","modified_gmt":"2016-10-08T16:20:27","slug":"appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Appearance vs Unknown on 24 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Appearance vs Unknown on 24 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\/2102\/2004\t 21\/ 21\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. 2102 of 2004\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE\n \n\n  \nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\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\nNAIMESHKUMAR\n@ LALO SHANTILAL SHELANI\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT \n\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nTEJAS M BAROT for Appellant. \nMR MAULIK G.NANAVATI, ADDL.APUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for the\nState. \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: 24\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nappellant was charged with the offence of murder
\nof Nirmalaben Jayshanker Dave of Mumbai origin staying in Vada Bazar
\narea of Dakor in Kheda District, allegedly committed on 14.10.2002 at
\nabout 12.45 P.M, in Bungalow No.8 of Ganganagar Society. The murder
\nwas committed by throttling the deceased. The other charge against
\nthe appellant was that after committing the murder, he wrapped the
\ndead body in a bed sheet and put it in a gunny bag and after
\nstitching the said gunny bag, put the dead body in the store-room and
\ntried to cause disappearance of the evidence. He was tried by the
\nSessions Court, Kheda camping at Anand, in Sessions Case No.8\/2003.
\nThe Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the charges levelled
\nagainst him were proved by the prosecution and sentenced him to
\nimprisonment for life for the offence of murder and imposed a fine of
\nRs.4 Lakhs, in default to undergo further imprisonment for three
\nyears. The Sessions Court then imposed no separate sentence for the
\noffence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code [ IPC
\nfor short]. The Sessions Court directed that if the appellant paid
\nthe fine, an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs would be paid to the heirs\/legal
\nrepresentatives of victim
\nNirmalaben by way of compensation. The said judgment was delivered on
\n27.08.2004. Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nfacts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that victim Nirmalaben
\nwas formerly residing at Mumbai and was working as a teacher. After
\nher retirement, she liquidated her properties and came down to Dakor
\nto lead a religious life. She was staying in a room in Vada-Bazar
\narea and used to have her meals outside. It is the case of the
\nprosecution that the appellant developed good relationship with the
\nvictim and acquired her faith and trust. The appellant, misusing his
\nposition,  borrowed money from the victim. Lastly the deceased had
\nwithdrawn an amount of Rs. 4,20,000\/- from her account and an amount
\nof Rs. 4,00,000\/- was allegedly handed over to the appellant. The
\nsaid amount of Rs.4,00,000\/- appears to have been then deposited by
\nthe appellant in his account.\n<\/p>\n
2.1\t\tIt
\nappears that for some reason, the money was demanded back by the
\nvictim and, therefore, a cheque for RS. 4,20,000\/- was issued on
\n9.10.2002 by the appellant in favour of the victim. The said cheque
\nwas returned by the Bank with an endorsement that the signature of
\nthe drawer differed. It then appears that the appellant executed an
\nundertaking on 11.10.2002 to pay the said amount of Rs. 4,20,000\/-
\nwith interest at the rate of 11% by 14.10.2002. It also appears that
\non the same day, the appellant executed another document on a revenue
\nstamp, whereby he undertook to repay the amount of Rs.4,20,000\/- on
\n14.10.2002 with no specific rate of interest.\n<\/p>\n
2.2\t\tAs
\nper the prosecution case, it appears that on 14.10.2002, the victim
\nwas lastly seen while going for taking lunch. Thereafter she was not
\nseen. Soon thereafter, the appellant was seen in the vicinity of
\nBungalow No.8 of Ganganagar Society where-from the dead body of the
\nvictim was later detected. Thereafter, on 17.10.2002, noticing foul
\nsmell spreading from the said Bungalow No.8 of Ganganagar Society,
\ninformation was given to the owner of the house, staying in
\nAhmedabad, and the police by a neighbour. The house was opened with
\nthe key produced by the appellant’s mother and the dead body of the
\nvictim was found from the store-room tied in a gunny bag. The dead
\nbody was in a degenerated condition. Inquest panchnama was prepared
\nand the dead body was sent for post-mortem. The cause of death was
\nopined to be asphyxia  due to ligature strangulation and smothering.
\nThe dead body was then handed over to the known persons. Later on,
\nhusband of niece of the victim, upon learning about the death of a
\nrelative from Mumbai came to Dakor and identified the clothes
\nrecovered from the dead body to be that of the victim. The appellant
\nwas absconding and appeared before the police on 24.10.2002 and the
\ninvestigation indicated that the appellant moved from place to place
\nranging from Surat in south Gujarat to Abu, a place located towards
\nnorth Gujarat. Ultimately, the police found that there was sufficient
\nmaterial to connect the appellant with the crime and, therefore,
\nfiled charge sheet against him in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.
\nDakor, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and
\nSessions Case No. 8\/2003 came to be registered.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tCharge
\nwas framed against the appellant-accused at Exh.3, to which he
\npleaded not guilty and came to be tried and convicted, as stated in
\nthe earlier part of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tWe
\nhave heard learned advocate Mr.Tejas Barot appearing for the
\nappellant, and learned A.P.P. Mr. Maulik Nanavati for the State.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.Barot submitted that the prosecution case depends on
\ncircumstantial evidence and there are many missing links, which are
\noverlooked by the trial Court while recording conviction and,
\ntherefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
5.1\t\tMr.Barot
\nsubmitted that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was in
\nthe company of the appellant lastly, nor is there any evidence to
\nshow that the deceased ever came to Bungalow No.8 in the proximity of
\ntime of the alleged incident. He submitted that there is no evidence
\nto show that the appellant entered the said Bungalow No.8 of
\nGanganagar Society around the time when the incident occurred. He
\nsubmitted further that simply because the appellant borrowed some
\nmoney from the deceased, motive cannot be attributed to the appellant
\nfor causing murder of the victim. According to Mr.Barot, there is no
\nevidence on record to show that the dead body, which was found, was
\nthat of victim Nirmalaben Jayshanker Dave. Mr.Barot submitted that
\nthe evidence about the clothes of the deceased is also inconsistent.
\nFurther, there is no evidence to show that the key of the said
\nBungalow No.8 of Ganganagar Society was in exclusive possession or
\nunder exclusive control of the appellant. He submitted that in face
\nof these missing links, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved
\nits case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
5.2\t\tMr.Barot
\nalso submitted that the investigation is also not properly carried
\nout. He submitted that no bleeding injury was found on the person of
\nthe deceased, more particularly when the dead body was found in a
\npuddle of blood, as stated in the panchnama. He submitted that in the
\ninquest panchnama, there is no reference to any string being tied
\naround the neck of the deceased which was noticed by the doctor
\nperforming post-mortem. Similarly, the dead body was found in a green
\ncoloured bed-sheet and what had happened to that bed-sheet is not
\ncoming on record. The fact remains that such bed-sheet was not sent
\nto FSL for chemical examination. The investigation is, therefore,
\nfaulty and the benefit thereof may be given to the appellant. Mr.
\nBarot, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be allowed and the
\nconviction of the appellant may be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tLearned
\nA.P.P. Mr.Nanavati has opposed this appeal. According to him, in a
\ncase of circumstantial evidence, there may not be any direct or
\ncogent evidence, but, the circumstances must lead to hypothesis of
\nguilt of the accused.  In the instant case, the appellant had strong
\nmotive. He had borrowed money from the deceased, which he could not
\nrepay to her and probably pressure started building upon him, as a
\nresult of which he had to issue initially a cheque followed by two
\npromissory-notes. From the day on which the appellant is alleged to
\nhave promised to make final repayment, the deceased goes missing and
\nis later found dead in a house to which the appellant had an access.
\nMr. Nanavati submitted that it is true that the appellant was not the
\nsole person who had access, but, the appellant was seen in the
\nproximity of time and place of the incident and thereafter the
\nappellant himself also was not traceable and surrendered only on
\n24.10.2002. His subsequent conduct of fleeing from the place of the
\nincident for almost ten days would be a strong circumstance against
\nhim, more so when the appellant has not even tried to explain his
\nabsence from the place of the incident and his whereabouts during
\nthat period. Mr.Nanavati submitted that the clothes of the deceased
\nwere found from the same gunny bag from which the dead body was found
\nand the same had been identified by the husband of the niece of the
\nvictim, which would fix the identity of the victim. The deceased
\nappears to have been dressing in a peculiar way i.e. wearing a
\npetticoat under shirt, which would make identity easier. He further
\nsubmitted that at the instance of the appellant, there has been
\ndiscovery of blood stained clothes allegedly worn by the accused at
\nthe time of the offence.  Mr.Nanavati, therefore, submitted that the
\nappeal may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tWe
\nhave examined the record and proceedings of the case in the context
\nof rival side submissions.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tFrom
\nthe evidence, we find that the appellant had developed close
\nproximity with the deceased and had taken money from the victim. On
\nthe last occasion i.e.  on 14.8.2002, an amount of Rs.4,20,000\/- was
\nwithdrawn by the deceased by drawing a cheque in her own favour, and
\nan amount of Rs. 4,00,000\/- was deposited in the account of the
\nappellant on 16.8.2002. It appears that the amount was called back by
\nthe victim and the appellant, therefore, wrote a cheque in favour of
\nthe victim drawn on Bank of India, Manekchowk, Ahmedabad Branch on
\n9.10.2002 for an amount of Rs. 4,20,000. The said cheque was returned
\nwith an endorsement that the signature of the drawer differed.\n<\/p>\n
8.1\t\tThen
\nit appears that the appellant executed two writings on 11.10.2002
\nwhereby he agreed to pay Rs.4,20,000\/- to the victim with interest on
\n14.10.2002. It also appears that such payment has not been made by
\nthe appellant nor it is his case that the amount is paid.\n<\/p>\n
8.2\t\tIt
\nemerges from the record that the deceased was not noticed after
\n14.10.2002. Therefore, witness Dwarkadas Mahant, examined as PW.3, at
\nExh.21, made inquiry at the place where the deceased used to go for
\ntaking lunch and was informed that lastly she had come there for
\ntaking lunch on 14.10.2002.\n<\/p>\n
8.3\t\tIncidentally,
\nwitness Dwarkadas Mahant (Exh.21) also deposes about the monetary
\ntransaction between the appellant and the deceased, and the appellant
\nissuing cheque, the cheque bouncing and then the appellant again
\nexecuting two writings in favour of the victim. His deposition on
\nthis aspect has remained unshaken.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tFrom
\nthe evidence of PW.1, Pradeepkumar Keshavlal Bhavsar, examined at
\nExh.8, it appears that he is staying in Bungalow No.5 of Ganganagar
\nSociety. Opposite to his house, there is Bungalow No.8. He knows
\nBhikhubhai Mangubhai Shah, owner of Bungalow No.8, who is
\nbrother-in-law of the appellant. According to him, Bhikhubhai used to
\nvisit Dakor occasionally. One key to the house remained with
\nBhikhubhai, whereas one key remained with the appellant. Bhikhubhai
\nhad come to Dakor about a month prior to the incident. On 17.10.2002,
\nthe witness noticed foul smell spreading from said Bungalow No.8.
\nTherefore, he telephoned the son of Bhikhubhai at Ahmedabad informing
\nhim about the same and in response thereto, Bhikhubhai’s two sons
\ncame to Dakor at about 5.00 to 6.00 P.M and then went to the police
\nstation and informed the police about the foul smell. The key was
\ncalled for and the house was opened and dead body was detected.\n<\/p>\n
9.1\t\tHowever,
\nabout three days prior to this episode, the witness says that he had
\nnoticed the appellant coming on a motorcycle and parking the same
\nbehind the said bungalow of Bhikhubhai. The appellant was followed by
\nan auto-rickshaw. The witness says that he could not identify whether
\nthe person sitting in the rickshaw was male or female. The witness
\nsays that he delivered an envelope to the appellant and went into his
\nhouse. He does not know, whether the person alighted  from the
\nrickshaw or not. This witness did not support the prosecution case
\nand, therefore, he might have been treated as hostile to the
\nprosecution with the permission of the Court. However, the fact
\nremains that even according to this witness, in proximity of time,
\nthe appellant was seen in the vicinity of Bungalow No.8, Ganganagar
\nSociety, where from the dead body was later on detected. It also
\ntranspires from his evidence that the key of the said house remained
\nwith the appellant and the owner of the house was occasionally
\nvisiting the house.\n<\/p>\n
9.2\t\tIt
\nis thus clear that the appellant had an easy access to the said
\nBungalow No.8 being in possession of the key. There is no material on
\nrecord to show or to infer that the deceased had any access to the
\nsaid Bungalow No.8 or that she had any reason to go there. The
\npanchnama of the place of incident (Exh.11) shows that the front door
\nof the house was locked from outside, whereas rest of the doors and
\nthe windows were bolted from inside, which would rule out the
\npossibility of anybody’s entering or having entered the premises in
\nan unauthorised manner and having got out of the premises in an
\nunauthorised manner. This  would also rule out the possibility of the
\ndeceased having entered the house and having been left behind by the
\naccompanying person, otherwise she would have raised alarm. This
\npossibility gets ruled out with another fact that the house was
\nbroken open and dead body was found wrapped in a bed-sheet and then
\nput in a gunny bag and again stitched with a jute-thread.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tA
\nstrong objection is raised on the question of identity of the victim.
\nIn this context, it may be noted that initially the dead body was not
\nidentified, but later on the identity of the dead body was fixed with
\nthe evidence of husband of the niece of the victim, namely,
\nVishwakant Rambhai, examined at Exh.87. He upon receiving
\ninformation, came to Dakor and learnt about the details from the
\npolice. However, on being shown, he  identified the clothes and
\nchapal recovered from the dead body as that of the deceased.
\nHe also stated that he had made inquires with the cook of
\nBharat-Bhuvan where the deceased used to dine and was informed that
\nlastly the deceased had gone there for taking meal on 14.10.2002 at
\nabout 12.00 noon. This would, therefore, establish that the dead
\nbody, which was found from Bungalow No.8 of Ganganagar Society was
\nthat of victim Nirmalaben Jayshanker Dave.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tNow
\ncomes an important aspect about the conduct of the appellant. The
\nappellant was lastly seen on 14.10.2002 near Bungalow No.8 of
\nGanganagar Society, where he went on a motorcycle and received an
\nenvelope from PW.1. Thereafter he was noticed for the first time on
\n24.10.2002 when he surrendered before the police. In between, the
\nevidence on record reveals that an amount of Rs. 50,000\/- was
\nwithdrawn by him from his Bank on 16.10.2002 by drawing a cheque in
\nhis own favour. It also comes on record that thereafter the appellant
\nleft Dakor and continued to move from place to place i.e. Baroda,
\nSurat, Pune and Abu. The prosecution has examined witnesses, who
\ndepose about the appellant having purchased a ticket from Shreenath
\nTravels for going to Pune on 16.10.2002 and on 19.10.2002, he
\npurchased ticket from Surat for going to Abu. At Surat, he stayed in
\nhotel Shital Plaza. However, the evidence regarding his stay at the
\nhotel and travelling to Surat and Abu etc., is not satisfactorily
\nbrought on record by the prosecution. We may not go into that
\nquestion, but,  the fact  remains that the appellant kept away from
\nhis ordinary place of residence soon after the incident and has
\nfailed to explain the reason for his going away and keeping away from
\nhis ordinary place of residence.  This act, therefore, can be treated
\nas abscondance on the part of the appellant after the incident.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThus,
\nthe prosecution has proved the motive, presence of the appellant in
\nproximity to the time and place of the incident, his subsequent
\nconduct and identity of the victim, which would complete a chain of
\ncircumstances against him.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe
\ndefence has raised several other questions regarding non-noticing of
\nstring around the neck of the dead body at the time of drawing
\ninquest panchnama, which then came to be noticed by the doctor while
\nperforming post-mortem. In our view, this is of no consequence for
\nthe reason that the inquest panchnama is prepared by a layman and the
\npost-mortem is done by an expert. Further, it is nobody’s case that
\nthe string was planted  round the dead body of the victim after
\ndrawing of the inquest panchnama and the fact remains that the
\ndeceased died of asphyxia. In this case, a moot question is, whether
\nthe prosecution connects the appellant with the offence rather than
\nthe offence was committed or not, and this in our opinion, the
\nprosecution is able to do successfully.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe
\nnext question that was raised was regarding the puddle of blood which
\nwas found beneath the dead body when it was detected after opening
\nthe house and lack of injury, which would have bled so profusely. In
\nthis context, it has to be recorded that bleeding from nostril, mouth
\nand ears was noticed by the doctor while performing post-mortem. We
\nmay also notice that the dead body was in a highly degenerated
\ncondition with maggots in it, which would obviously result into
\noozing of fluid, which would normally appear like blood. The dead
\nbody was so decomposed that the doctor performing the post-mortem
\nnoticed hissing sound coming from the dead body and, therefore, again
\nrecording of puddle of blood near the place where the dead body was
\nfound lying and want of injury, which would bleed profusely, does not
\nraise any doubt regarding occurrence and involvement of the appellant
\nin the incident. This contention, therefore, cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe
\nnext point that was raised was about the colour of the bed-sheet. It
\nwas indicated that the dead body was wrapped in a green coloured
\nbed-sheet, whereas the bed-sheet which is received by the FSL is
\nwhite with maroon design in it. We notice from the record that from
\nthe place of incident, nothing was recovered initially. Thereafter
\nthe dead body was sent to doctor for post-mortem and a half sleeved
\nshirt, a petticoat and a jute-thread 6ft & 8 inch in length were
\nrecovered by drawing a panchnama (exh.19) on 18.10.2002 between 15.30
\nand 16.00 hours. Thereafter, by drawing a panchnama (exh.20), a
\nbed-sheet from the cot was recovered along with tiles, both stained
\nwith blood, at the behest of the officers from the FSL. Going back to
\nthe panchnama of the place of the incident, we find that the
\nbed-sheet on the cot was stained with blood which was then not
\nrecovered, but subsequently recovered by drawing panchnama exh.20.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIt
\nmay be noted that the appellant had discovered clothes, worn by him
\nat the time of commission of the incident, by drawing a panchnama
\nexh.29. He discovered a pant and T-shirt. The T-shirt contained
\nstains of human blood having blood Group  O . That blood group is
\nthat of the accused himself as well. But, we notice from the arrest
\npanchnama that there were no marks of injury on his person. We also
\nnotice that the blood group of the deceased, though not examined by
\nthe FSL by extracting blood from the body, can be inferred to be of
\n O  Group, for the reason that the shirt worn by the deceased,
\nthe bed-sheet recovered from the place of the incident and the string
\nand the pieces of tiles recovered from the place of the incident, all
\ncontained human blood of Group  O . The end result is that the
\nT-shirt worn by the accused and discovered by him carried bloodstains
\nof group  O , which is of the deceased. The possibility of that
\nblood being that of the appellant himself gets ruled out by the fact
\nthat there were no marks of injury on his person. This would be an
\nadditional link to connect the appellant with the offence.\n<\/p>\n
16.1\t\tThe
\nfact that emerges from the discussion is that green coloured
\nbed-sheet, in which the dead body was wrapped and the gunny bag in
\nwhich the dead body was put, nowhere seem to have been recovered by
\nthe police during the investigation. No question is put to the I.O in
\nthis context, but, it can be inferred that the dead body was in a
\nhighly decomposed condition and, therefore, the bed-sheet, in which
\nthe dead body was wrapped and the gunny bag, in which it was put,
\nalso must have been stained with blood and affected with maggots and
\nnon-recovery or non-sending of these articles would not change the
\nmerits of the case in any manner because involvement of the appellant
\nis not proved through ocular evidence, but circumstantial evidence,
\nand in absence of ocular evidence, a legitimate inference leading to
\nthe hypothesis of guilt of the accused has to be drawn from the facts
\nproved. Minute details which may not affect such inference are not
\nrelevant.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tIn
\nthe light of the foregoing discussion, the prosecution is rightly
\nheld to have  proved a complete chain of circumstances to link up the
\nappellant with the offence and the trial Court was, therefore,
\njustified in convicting the appellant for murder of victim Nirmalaben
\nJayshanker Dave. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tIn
\nthe result, the appeal is  dismissed. The judgment and order of
\nconviction and sentence rendered by the learned Additional Sessions
\nJudge, Kheda camp at Anand, in Sessions Case No. 8\/2003, on
\n27.08.2004 is hereby confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[A.L.Dave,J.]<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[Harsha
\nDevani,J.]<\/p>\n
(patel)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Appearance vs Unknown on 24 February, 2010 Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/2102\/2004 21\/ 21 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2102 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================================= 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-58535","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAppearance vs Unknown on 24 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\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appearance vs Unknown on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-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=\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-08T16:20:27+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Appearance vs Unknown on 24 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-08T16:20:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3652,\"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\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Appearance vs Unknown on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-08T16:20:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appearance vs Unknown on 24 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":"Appearance vs Unknown on 24 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\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appearance vs Unknown on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-08T16:20:27+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Appearance vs Unknown on 24 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-08T16:20:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010"},"wordCount":3652,"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\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010","name":"Appearance vs Unknown on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-08T16:20:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appearance vs Unknown on 24 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\/58535","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=58535"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58535\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58535"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}