REPORTABLE\u2019
\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
\nCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1485 OF 2008
\nState of Gujarat \u2026 Appellant
\nVersus
\nKishanbhai Etc. \u2026 Respondents
\nJ U D G M E N T
\nJagdish Singh Khehar, J.
\n1. A complaint was lodged at Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, alleging the kidnapping\/abduction of a six year old gir\u00a0 hild Gomi daughter of Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki and Laliben on 27.2.2003 at around 6:00 p.m. by the accused Kishanbhai son of Velabhai Vanabhai Marwadi. It was alleged, that the accused had enticed Gomi with a \u201cgola\u201d (crushed ice, with sweet flavoured syrup), and thereupon had taken her to Jivi\u2019s field, where he raped her. He had murdered her by inflicting injuries on her head and other parts of the body with bricks. In order to steal the \u201cjhanjris\u201d (anklets) worn by her, he had chopped off her feet just above her ankles. The aforesaid complaint was lodged, after the body of the deceased Gomi was found from Jivi\u2019s field, at the instance of the accused Kishanbhai. On the receipt of the above complaint, the first information report came to be registered at Navrangpur Police Station, Ahmedabad.<\/p>\n
The prosecution version which emerged consequent upon the completion of the investigation reveals, that the family of the deceased Gomi was distantly related to the family of the accused Kishanbhai. In this behalf it would be pertinent to mention that Baghabhai Naranbhai Solanki was a resident of Gulbai Tekra, in the Navrangpura area of Ahmedabad. He resided there, along with his family. For his livelihood,
\nBaghabhai Naranbhai Solanki was running a shop in the name of Mahakali Pan Centre. The said shop was located near his residence.
\nBaghabhai Naranbhai Solanki was running the business of selling \u201cpan
\nand bidi\u201d in his shop. Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki, father of Baghabhai
\nNaranbhai Solanki used to live in the peon\u2019s quarters at Ambavadi in
\nAhmedabad. Modabhai Manabhai Solanki, uncle of Baghabhai
\nNaranbhai Solanki, had expired. His son Devabhai\u2019s daughter Laliben,
\nwas married to Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki. Keshabhai Mathabhai
\nSolanki and Laliben were residing at Shabamukhiwas, Gulbai Tekra in
\nAhmedabad. Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki and Laliben had two
\nchildren, a daughter Gomi aged six years, and a son Himat aged three
\nyears. Laliben\u2019s sister-in-law (her husband\u2019s, elder brother\u2019s wife)
\nFuliben Valabhai was residing near the residence of Keshabhai
\nMathabhai Solanki and Laliben. Kishanbhai the accused, is the brother
\nof Fuliben, and was residing with her. It is therefore, that the family of
\nthe deceased as also the accused, besides being distantly related, were
\nacquainted with one another as they were residing close to one another.
\n3. Insofar as the occurrence is concerned, according to the
\nprosecution, on 27.2.2003 Laliben, niece of Baghabhai, was confined to
\nher residence, as she was expecting. At about 6:00 p.m. her daughter<\/p>\n
Gomi, then aged 6 years, had wandered out of her house. The accused
\nKishanbhai then aged 19 years, entice her by giving her a \u201cgola\u201d.
\nHaving enticed her he had carried Gomi to Jivi\u2019s field. On the way to
\nJivi\u2019s field, he stole a knife with an 8 inch blade from Dineshbhai
\nKarsanbhai Thakore PW6, a \u201cdabeli\u201d (bread\/bun, with spiced potato
\nfilling) seller. Having taken Gomi to Jivi\u2019s field he had raped her. He
\nhad then killed her by causing injuries on her head and other parts of the
\nbody with bricks. In order to remove the \u201cjhanjris\u201d worn by her, he had
\namputated her legs with the knife stolen by him, from just above her
\nankles. He had then covered her body with his shirt, and had left Jivi\u2019s
\nfield. Kishanbhai the accused, then took the anklets stolen by him to
\nMahavir Jewellers, a shop owned by Premchand Shankerlal. He
\npledged the anklets at the above shop, for a sum of Rs.1,000\/-. The
\naccused Kishanbhai was confronted by Baghabhai and others
\nconstituting the search party, whilst he was on his way back to his
\nresidence. Kishanbhai, despite stating that he had not taken her away,
\nhad informed those searching for Gomi, that she could be at Jivi\u2019s field.
\nOn the suggestion of Kishanbhai, the search party had gone to Jivi\u2019s
\nfarm, where they found the body of Gomi.
\n4. Based on the aforesaid fact situation, confirmed through the
\ninvestigation carried on by the Police, a charge-sheet was framed
\nagainst the accused Kishanbhai under Sections 363, 369, 376, 394, 302
\nand 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 135(1) of the Bombay
\nPolice Act. The above charge-sheet was filed before the Metropolitan
\nMagistrate, Ahmedabad. Since the offences involved could be tried
\nonly by a Court of Session, the Metropolitan Magistrate, committed the<\/p>\n
matter to the Court of Session. On 8.3.2004, the Sessions Court to
\nwhich the matter came to be assigned, for trial, framed charges. Since
\nthe accused Kishanbhai denied his involvement in the matter, the court
\npermitted the prosecution to lead evidence.
\n5. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses. The statement of the
\naccused Kishanbhai was thereafter recorded under Section 313 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure. In his above statement, the accused
\nKishanbhai denied his involvement. Even though an opportunity was
\nafforded to Kishanbhai, he did not lead any evidence in his defence.
\nAfter examining the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Trial
\nCourt vide its judgment dated 18.8.2004, arrived at the conclusion that
\nprosecution had successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
\nBy a separate order dated 18.8.2004 the Trial Court sentenced
\nKishanbhai to death by hanging, subject to confirmation of the said
\nsentence by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (hereinafter
\nreferred to as the \u2018High Court\u2019) under Section 366 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure.
\n6. In the above view of the matter, the proceedings conducted by the
\nCourt of Session, were placed before the High Court at the behest of the
\nState of Gujarat, as Confirmation Case No. 7 of 2004. Independently of
\nthe confirmation proceedings, the accused Kishanbhai, aggrieved by the
\njudgment and order of sentence dated 18.8.2004, in Sessions Case No.
\n346 of 2003, filed Criminal Appeal No. 1549 of 2004 before the High
\nCourt.<\/p>\n
The criminal appeal filed by the accused Kishanbhai was
\naccepted by the High Court. Kishanbhai was acquitted by giving him
\nthe benefit of doubt. The Confirmation Case No. 7 of 2004 was turned
\ndown in view of the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court
\nwhile allowing Criminal Appeal no. 1549 of 2004.
\n8. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the High Court, the State of
\nGujarat approached this Court by filing Petition for Special Leave to
\nAppeal (Crl.) No. 599 of 2006. On 11.9.2008 leave to appeal was
\ngranted. Thereupon, the matter came to be registered as Criminal
\nAppeal No. 1485 of 2008.
\n9. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant, in order to
\nsubstantiate the guilt of the accused-respondent Kishanbhai, has tried to
\nproject that the prosecution was successful in demonstrating an
\nunbroken chain of circumstances, clearly establishing the culpability of
\nthe accused. In fact, the endeavour at the hands of the learned counsel
\nfor the appellant was to project an unbroken chain of circumstances to
\nestablish the guilt of the accused. Despite the defects in investigation
\nand the prosecution of the case, as also, the inconsistencies highlighted
\nby the High Court in the evidence produced by the prosecution, learned
\ncounsel for the State expressed confidence, to establish the guilt of the
\naccused-respondent. In this behalf, it is essential to record the various
\nheads under which submissions were advanced at the hands of the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant-State. We shall, therefore, briefly
\nsummarise all the contentions, and while doing so, refer to the evidence
\nbrought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant, to<\/p>\n
establish the guilt of the accused-respondent, Kishanbhai. The
\nsubmissions advanced before us are accordingly being recorded
\nhereunder :
\n(a) First and foremost, learned counsel for the appellant, in order to
\nconnect the accused with the crime under reference, extensively relied
\nupon the evidence produced by the prosecution to show that the
\naccused-respondent Kishanbhai was last seen with the victim. He was
\nseen taking away the victim Gomi. For the above, reliance was placed
\non the statement of Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5, who had
\ndeposed that he had seen the deceased Gomi with the accused-
\nrespondent Kishanbhai on 27.2.2003 at around 6:00 p.m. As per his
\ndeposition, he had seen Gomi eating a \u201cgola\u201d outside his (the witness\u2019s)
\nresidence. At the same juncture, he had also seen the accused-
\nrespondent Kishanbhai coming from the side of Polytechnic.
\nKishanbhai, according to the deposition of PW5, had approached Gomi.
\nThereafter, as per the statement of PW5, the accused had carried away
\nGomi towards the side of the Polytechnic. In his testimony, Naranbhai
\nManabhai Solanki PW5, had also stated, that at about 9:00 pm, when he
\nhad again seen the accused-respondent Kishanbhai coming from the
\nroad leading to the Gulbai Tekra Police Chowki, he was asked, by those
\nwho were searching for Gomi, about her whereabouts. The accused
\nwas also asked about the whereabouts of Gomi, by Naranbhai
\nManabhai Solanki PW5 and by the son of PW 5 i.e., by Bababhai
\nNaranbhai Solanki PW2. To the aforesaid queries, according to
\nNaranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5, the accused-respondent Kishanbhai
\nhad stated, that she might be sitting in Jivi\u2019s field. In addition to the<\/p>\n
testimony of Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5, reference was also
\nmade to the testimony of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6. PW6,
\nduring his deposition, had asserted, that the accused-respondent
\nKishanbhai had come to his \u201clari\u201d (handcart used by hawkers, to sell
\ntheir products) for purchasing a \u201cdabeli\u201d. It was pointed out by Dinesh
\nKarshanbhai Thakore PW6, that he had noticed the accused carrying a
\nchild aged about seven years, wearing a red frock. In his statement, he
\nalso affirmed that the accused-respondent Kishanbhai, had asked him
\nfor a knife but he had declined to give it to him. Thereupon, whilst
\nleaving his \u201clari\u201d, Kishanbhai had stolen a knife from his \u201clari\u201d. It was
\nalso pointed out, that the knife recovered at the instance of the accused-
\nrespondent Kishanbhai, was identified by him as the one stolen from his
\n\u201clari\u201d. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the last seen
\nevidence referred to above stands duly corroborated by the deposition
\nof Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2, not only in his deposition before
\nthe Trial Court, but also in the complaint filed by him at the first instance
\nat Navrangpur Police Station, Ahmedabad, immediately after the
\nrecovery of the dead body of Gomi from Jivi\u2019s field.
\n(b) Learned counsel for the appellant also laid emphasis on the
\nrecovery of the weapon of offence, i.e., a blood stained knife, at the
\ninstance of none other than the accused-respondent Kishanbhai himself.
\nIn order to substantiate the instant aspect of the matter, learned counsel
\nplaced reliance on the testimony of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6,
\nwho deposed that the accused had visited his \u201clari\u201d on the evening of
\n27.2.2003 for the purchase of a \u201cdabeli\u201d. The accused respondent, as
\nnoticed earlier, as per the statement of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore<\/p>\n
PW6, was carrying a small girl aged about 7 years. He also deposed,
\nthat the accused-respondent had asked him for his knife, but upon his
\nrefusal, had stolen the same from his \u201clari\u201d. Dinesh Karshanbhai
\nThakore PW6, had identified the knife which had been recovered at the
\ninstance of the accused, as the one stolen by the accused-respondent
\nKishanbhai from his \u201clari\u201d. Additionally it was submitted, that the
\naccused had led the police to Jivi\u2019s field, from where he got recovered
\nthe murder weapon, i.e., the same knife which he had stolen from the
\n\u201clari\u201d of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6. The above knife had a
\nblade measuring eight inches, including a steel handle of four inches. At
\nthe time of recovery of the knife, the same had stains of blood. The
\nabove knife was recovered by the police on 1.3.2003, in the presence of
\nan independent witness, namely, Rameshbhai Lakhabhai Bhati PW1,
\nwho in his deposition clearly narrated, that the knife in question was
\nrecovered from Jivi\u2019s field, from under some stones at the instance of
\nthe accused-respondent Kishanbhai.
\n(c) Learned counsel for the appellant, then referred to the medical
\nevidence produced by the prosecution, so as to contend that the wounds
\ninflicted on the person of Gomi, were with the murder weapon, i.e., the
\nknife recovered at the instance of the accused-respondent Kishanbhai.
\nFor this, learned counsel placed reliance on the statement of Dr. Saumil
\nPremchandbhai Merchant PW8, who had conducted the post-mortem
\nexamination of the deceased Gomi on 28.2.2003. In the post-mortem
\nreport, according to learned counsel, mention was made about several
\nincised injuries which could have been inflicted with the knife stolen by
\nthe accused-respondent Kishanbhai. In this respect, reference was<\/p>\n
made to serial No.14 of the post-mortem notes (Exhibit 29) proved by
\nDr. Saumil Premchandbhai Merchant PW8, clearly indicating, that the
\ninjuries caused to the victim which have been referred to at serial No.7,
\ncould have been caused with the knife (muddamal Article No.19), i.e.,
\nthe same knife, which had been recovered at the instance of the
\naccused. Even in the inquest panchnama (Exhibit 14), it was recorded
\nthat both legs of the victim Gomi were mutated from just above the ankle
\nwith a sharp weapon, with the object of removing the anklets in the feet
\nof the victim Gomi. This document, according to the learned counsel,
\nalso indicates the use of a knife in the occurrence under reference.
\n(d) It was also the submission of the learned counsel for the
\nappellant, that at the time of recovery of the body of the victim from Jivi\u2019s
\nfield, the same was found to be covered with a shirt with stripes. It was
\nsubmitted, that the aforesaid shirt was identified as the shirt worn by the
\naccused-respondent Kishanbhai, when he was seen carrying away the
\nvictim Gomi, on 27.2.2003. In this behalf, reliance was placed by the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant, on the testimony of Naranbhai
\nManabhai Solanki PW5. The above witnesses had identified the shirt as
\na white shirt with lines. To give credence to the testimony of Naranbhai
\nManabhai Solanki PW5, learned counsel also pointed out, that when the
\naccused was found coming from the direction of the police station after
\nthe commission of the crime, he was seen wearing a black T-shirt. The
\nstatement of Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5, was sought to be
\ncorroborated with the statement of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6.
\nThe accused respondent is stated to have approached the \u201clari\u201d of
\nDinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6 for purchasing a \u201cdabeli\u201d, and at that<\/p>\n
juncture, the accused-respondent is stated to have been wearing a white
\nlined shirt, and a green trouser. On the recovery of the shirt and trouser,
\nthey were marked as Mudammal Articles 8 and 14 respectively. Dinesh
\nKarshanbhai Thakore PW6 had identified the shirt, as also, the trouser
\nduring the course of his deposition before the Trial Court. The green
\ntrouser worn by the accused-respondent was also identified by
\nBababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2. Additionally, Bababhai Naranbhai
\nSolanki PW2 deposed that a black colour T-shirt was worn by the
\naccused-respondent when he was apprehended and brought to the
\npolice station. The above articles were also identified by Angha
\nLalabhai Marwadi PW12 and Naranbhai Lalbhai Desai PW13 who were
\nthe panch witnesses at the time of seizure of the abovementioned
\nclothing.
\n(e) It was also the submission of the learned counsel for the
\nappellant, that the report of the forensic science laboratory was sufficient
\nto confirm, that the accused respondent was the one who was involved
\nin the commission of the crime under reference. In this behalf, it was
\npointed out that the victim Gomi was shown to have blood group \u201cB+ve\u201d.
\nAccording to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the bricks
\nrecovered from the place of occurrence (which had been used in
\ncausing injuries on the head and other body parts of the victim), the
\npanties worn by the deceased victim Gomi, the white shirt which was
\nfound on the body of the victim at the time of its recovery from Jivi\u2019s
\nfield, the T-shirt and the green trouser worn by the accused respondent
\nKishanbhai (at the time he was apprehended), and even the weapon of
\nthe crime, namely, the knife recovered at the instance of the accused-<\/p>\n
respondent, were all found with blood stains. The forensic report
\nreveals that the blood stains on all the above articles were of blood
\ngroup \u201cB+ve\u201d. It was, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel
\nfor the appellant, that the accused-respondent was unmistakably shown
\nto be connected with the crime under reference.
\n(f) In order to substantiate the motive of the accused-respondent,
\nlearned counsel for the appellant relied upon the statement of the
\ninvestigating officer Ranchhodji Bhojrajji Chauhan PW14, who had
\nstated in his deposition that the owner of Mahavir Jewellers, i.e.,
\nPremchand Shankarlal Mehta had presented himself at the police
\nstation. The abovementioned jeweler is stated to have informed the
\npolice, that the accused respondent Kishanbhai had pawned the anklets
\nbelonging to the victim Gomi with him for a sum of Rs.1,000\/-. Insofar
\nas the identification of the anklets is concerned, reference was made to
\nthe statement of Keshobhai Madanbhai Solanki PW7, i.e., father of the
\nvictim who had identified the anklets marked as Muddamal Article
\nNo.18, as belonging to his daughter Gomi, which she was wearing when
\nshe had gone missing. Reference was also made to the statement of
\nJagdishbhai Bhagabhai Marwadi PW11, as also, the panchnama of
\nrecovery of the silver anklets which also, according to learned counsel,
\nconnects the accused to the crime.
\n(g) Last but not the least, learned counsel for the appellant invited
\nthis Court\u2019s attention to the statement tendered by the accused under
\nSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the course of his
\nabove testimony, he was confronted with the evidence of the relevant<\/p>\n
witnesses depicting, that the victim Gomi was last seen in his company
\nat 6:00 p.m. on 27.2.2003. He was also confronted with the fact, that he
\nhimself had informed the search party, that Gomi may be found at Jivi\u2019s
\nfield. It is submitted, that the accused-respondent Kishanbhai, who had
\nspecial knowledge about the whereabouts of the deceased, was bound
\nto explain and prove when and where he had parted from the company
\nof the victim Gomi. It was submitted that during the course of his
\ndeposition under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
\naccused could not tender any satisfactory explanation.
\nBased on the above evidence, it was the submission of the learned
\ncounsel for the appellant, that even in the absence of any eye witness
\naccount, the prosecution should be held to have been successful in
\nestablishing the guilt of the accused-respondent Kishanbhai through
\ncircumstantial evidence. The claim of circumstantial evidence emerging
\nfrom different witnesses summarized above, according to the learned
\ncounsel, leads to one and only one conclusion, namely, that the
\naccused-respondent Kishanbhai alone had committed the criminal acts
\nunder reference. It was submitted, that the chain of circumstantial
\nevidence, was sufficient to establish, that none other than the accused-
\nrespondent could have committed the alleged criminal actions. It was
\nalso contended, that no link in the chain of circumstantial evidence was
\nmissing, so as to render any ambiguity in the matter.
\n10. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. To determine
\nthe controversy arising out of the instant criminal appeal, we shall first
\nendeavour to summarise the conclusions drawn by the High Court under
\ndifferent heads. We have decided to adopt the above procedure to
\nunderstand the implications of various aspects of the evidence produced
\nby the prosecution before the Trial Court. This procedure has been
\nadopted by us (even though the same was neither adopted by the Trial
\nCourt, or by the High Court) so as to effectively understand, and
\nthereupon, to adequately deal with the contentions advanced at the
\nhands of the appellant, before this Court.
\n11. We would first of all, like to deal with the lapses committed by the
\ninvestigating and prosecuting agencies in the process of establishing
\nthe guilt of the accused before the Trial Court. It will be relevant to
\nmention that all these lacunae\/deficiencies, during the course of
\ninvestigation and prosecution, were pointed out by the High Court, in the
\nimpugned judgment. These constitute relevant aspects, which are liable
\nto be taken into consideration while examining the evidence relied upon
\nby the prosecution. We have summarised the aforesaid lapses,
\npointedly to enable us to correctly deal with the submissions advanced
\nat the behest of the State. Since the guilt of the accused in the instant
\ncase is to be based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential for us to
\ndetermine whether or not a complete chain of events stand established
\nfrom the evidence produced by the prosecution. The above deficiencies
\nand shortcomings are being summarised below:
\n(a) According to the prosecution story after having removed the
\nanklets from Gomi\u2019s feet, the accused Kishanbai had taken the anklets
\nto Mahavir Jewellers, a shop owned by Premchand Shankerlal. He
\npledged aforesaid anklets with Premchand Shankerlal, for a sum of Rs.
\n1,000\/-. The anklets under reference, were handed over by Premchand<\/p>\n
Shankerlal to the investing officer on 1.3.2003, in the presence of two
\npanch witnesses. According to the prosecution case, the jeweller had
\ngone to the police station with the anklets on his own, after having read
\nnewspaper reports to the effect, that a girl had been raped and
\nmurdered and her anklets had been taken away. He had approached
\nthe police station under the suspicion, that the anklets pledged with him,
\nmight have belonged to the girl mentioned in the newspaper reports.
\nOne of the panch witnesses, namely, Jagdishbhai Marwari PW15 had
\ndeposed, that above Premchand Shankerlal had identified the accused
\nKishanbhai, as the very person who had pledged the anklets with him.
\nIn this behalf it is relevant to mention, that Premchand Shankerlal was
\nnot produced as a prosecution witness. It is important to notice, that the
\nanklets handed over to the Police, were successfully established by the
\nprosecution as the ones worn by the deceased Gomi. The lapse of the
\nprosecution on account of not producing Premchand Shankerlal as
\nprosecution witness, according to the High Court, resulted in a missing
\nlink in the chain of events which would have established the link of the
\naccused Kishanbhai, with the anklets, and thereby convulsively
\nconnecting him with the crime.
\n(b) The prosecution story further discloses, that Premchand Shankerlal
\nthe owner of Mahavir Jewellers, had executed a receipt with the
\naccused Kishanbhai, depicting the pledging of the anklets for a sum of
\nRs.1,000\/-. The aforesaid receipt was placed on record of the Trial
\nCourt as exhibit 52. The above receipt according to Premchand
\nShankerlal, was thumb marked by the accused Kishanbhai. Even
\nthough the receipt indicates the name of the person who had pledged<\/p>\n
the anklets as Rajubhai, the same could clearly be a false name given
\nby the person who pledged the anklets. Certainly, there could be no
\nmistake in the identity of the thumb mark affixed on the said receipt.
\nThe prosecution could have easily established the identity of the
\npledger, by comparing the thumb impression on the receipt (exhibit 52),
\nwith the thumb impression of the accused-respondent Kishanbhai. This
\nwas however not done. The lapse committed by the prosecution in not
\nproducing Premchand Shankerlal as a witness, could have easily been
\novercome by proving the identity of the person who had pledged the
\nanklets, by identifying the thumb impression on the receipt (exhibit 52),
\nin accordance with law. In case the thumb impression turned out to be
\nthat of the accused Kishanbhai, he would be unmistakably linked with
\nthe crime. In case it was found not to be the thumb impression of the
\naccused Kishanbhai, his innocence could also have been inferred.
\nAccording to the High Court this important lapse in proving the
\nprosecution case before the Trial Court, had resulted in a major
\nobstacle in establishing the guilt\/innocence of the accused.
\n(c) It is also the case of the prosecution, that when the accused
\nKishanbhai was apprehended, a sum of Rs.940\/- was recovered from
\nhis possession. According to the prosecution story the accused
\nKishanbhai had pledged the anklets at Mahavir Jewellers with
\nPremchand Shankerlal for a sum of Rs. 1,000\/-. In order to link the
\nmoney recovered from his possession at the time of his detention, it was
\nimperative for the prosecution to establish how and why a sum of
\nRs.940\/- only, was recovered from the possession of the accused
\nKishanbhai. He ought to have been in possession of at least Rs.1,000\/-<\/p>\n
i.e., the amount given to him by Premchand Shankerlal when he
\npledged the anklets at his shop, even if it is assumed that he had no
\nmoney with him when he had pawned the anklets. This important link
\nhaving not been established by the prosecution, breaks the chain of
\nevents necessary to establish the guilt of the accused Kishanbhai, and
\nconstitutes a serious lapse in the prosecution evidence.
\n(d) It is apparent from the prosecution story, that the victim Gomi was
\nraped. In establishing the factum of the rape the prosecution had relied
\nupon the note prepared at the time of conducting the post-mortem
\nexamination of the deceased Gomi. The same inter alia reveals, that
\ndry blood was present over the labia, and deep laceration of
\nsubcutaneous tissues was present on the left margin of the vaginal
\nopening, just above the posterior commission. The hymen was also
\nfound ruptured at 3 and 6,O\u2019 clock. It is therefore, that the accused was
\ndeputed for being subjected to medical examination, during the course
\nof investigation. For the above purpose he was examined by Dr. P.D.
\nShah. In fact Dr. P.D. Shah was a cited witness before the Trial Court.
\nDespite the above Dr. P.D. Shah was not examined as a prosecution
\nwitness. Clearly a vital link in a chain of events, to establish the rape of
\nthe victim Gomi came to be broken consequent upon by the non-
\nexamination of Dr. P.D. Shah as a prosecution witness.
\n(e) The High Court has also noticed, that even the report\/certificate
\ngiven by the medical officer relating to the medical examination of the
\naccused Kishanbhai was not produced by the prosecution before the
\nTrial Court. It is apparent, that the lapse in not producing Dr. P.D. Shah<\/p>\n
as a prosecution witness, may have been overcome if the report
\nprepared by him (after examining the accused Kishanbhai) was placed
\non the record of the Trial Court, after being proved in accordance with
\nlaw. The action of prosecution in not producing the aforesaid report
\nbefore the Trial Court, was another serious lapse in proving the case
\nbefore the Trial Court. This had also resulted a missing vital link, in the
\nchain of events which could have established, whether or not accused
\nKishanbhai had committed rape on victim Gomi.
\n(f) The High Court having noticed the injuries suffered by Gomi, a six
\nyear old girl child on her genitals, had expressed the view, that the
\nsame would have resulted in reciprocal injuries to the male organ of the
\nperson who had committed rape on her. It was pointed out, that if the
\naccused Kishanbhai had been sent for medical examination the
\ntestimony or the report of the medical officer would have revealed the
\npresence of smegma around the corona-glandis, which would have
\neither established innocence or guilt of the accused, specially if the
\naccused had been medically examined within 24 hours. In the instant
\ncase the sequence of the events reveal, that the occurrence had been
\ncommitted between 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on 27.2.2003. At the time of
\nrecovery of the body of deceased Gomi from Jivi\u2019s field, at about 9:00
\npm, it came to be believed that she had been subjected to rape. The
\naccused Kishanbhai was shown to have been formerly arrested at 6:40
\na.m. on 28.2.2003 (even if the inference drawn by the High Court, that
\nthe accused Kishanbhai was in police custody since 9:00 p.m. on
\n27.2.2003 itself, is ignored). The accused could have been medically
\nexamined within a period of 24 hours of the occurrence. The<\/p>\n
prosecution case does not show whether or not such action was taken.
\nThis lapse in the investigation of the case, had also resulted the
\nomission of a vital link in the chain of events which would have
\nunquestionably established the guilt of the accused Kishanbhai of
\nhaving committed rape (or possibly his innocence).
\n(g) It needs to be noticed, that when the accused Kishanbhai was
\narrested, there were several injuries on his person. The said injuries
\nwere also depicted in his arrest panchnama. At 7:15 am on 28.2.2003,
\nthe accused Kishanbhai filed a first information report alleging, that he
\nwas beaten by some of the relatives of the victim Gomi, as also, by
\nsome unknown persons accompanying the search party, under the
\nsuspicion\/belief, that he was responsible for the occurrence. In the
\nabove first information report, the accused Kishanbhai had also
\ndepicted the nature of injuries suffered by him. The statement of the
\ninvestigating officer Ranchodji Bhojrajji Chauhan PW14 reveals, that the
\naccused Kishanbhai had been sent to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, for his
\nmedical examination. Neither the doctor who had examined the
\naccused was produced as a prosecution witness, nor the
\nreport\/certificate given by the medical officer disclosing the details of his
\nobservations\/findings was placed on record. This evidence was vital for
\nthe success of the prosecution case. According to the High Court, blood
\nof group \u201cB +ve\u201d was found on the clothes of the accused Kishanbhai.
\nThe important question to be determined thereupon was, whether it was
\nhis own blood or blood of the victim Gomi. The statement of the
\nmedical officer who had examined the accused Kishabhai, when he was
\nsent for medical examination to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, would have<\/p>\n
disclose whether or not accused Kishanbhai had any bleeding injuries.
\nThe importance of nature of the injuries suffered by the accused
\nKishanbhai emerges from the fact, that both the accused Kishanbhai
\nand the victim Gomi had the same blood group \u201cB +ve\u201d. An
\ninference could have only been drawn that the blood on his clothes was
\nthat of the victim, in case it was established that the accused-
\nrespondent Kishanbhai had not suffered any bleeding injuries, and
\ntherefore, the possibility of his own blood being on his clothes was ruled
\nout. This important link in the chain of events is also missing from the
\nevidence produced by the prosecution, and constitutes a serious lapse
\nin the investigation\/prosecution of the case.
\nIn view of the above factual position, the High Court made the following
\nobservations \u201cLooking to the advancement in the field of medical
\nscience, the investigating agency should not have stopped at this stage.
\nThough ABO system of blood grouping is one of the most important
\nsystem, which is being normally used for distinguishing blood of different
\npersons, there are about 19 genetically determined blood grouping
\nsystems known to the present day science, and it is also known that
\nthere are about 200 different blood groups, which have been identified
\nby the modern scientific methods (Source: Mc-Graw-Hill Encyclopedia
\nof Science and Technology, Vol.2). Had such an effort been made by
\nthe prosecution, the outcome of the said effort would have helped a lot
\nto the trial Court in ascertaining whether the accused had in fact visited
\nthe scene of offence.\u201d This also constitutes a glaring lapse in the
\ninvestigation of the crime under reference.<\/p>\n
There has now been a great advancement in scientific investigation on
\nthe instant aspect of the matter. The investigating agency ought to have
\nsought DNA profiling of the blood samples, which would have given a
\nclear picture whether or not the blood of the victim Gomi was, in fact on
\nthe clothes of the accused-respondent Kishanbhai. This scientific
\ninvestigation would have unquestionably determined whether or not the
\naccused-respondent was linked with the crime. Additionally, DNA
\nprofiling of the blood found on the knife used in the commission of the
\ncrime (which the accused-respondent, Kishanbhai had allegedly stolen
\nfrom Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6), would have uncontrovertibly
\ndetermined, whether or not the said knife had been used for severing the
\nlegs of the victim Gomi, to remove her anklets. In spite of so much
\nadvancement in the field of forensic science, the investigating agency
\nseriously erred in carrying out an effective investigation to genuinely
\ndetermine the culpability of the accused-respondent Kishanbhai.
\n(h) It is also apparent from the complaint submitted by Bababhai
\nNaranbhai Solanki PW 2, that he had been informed by one Kalabhai
\nGaneshbhai, that he had seen the accused Kishanbhai taking away
\nGomi. In such an event, the proof of the fact of the accused-respondent
\nhaving abducted Gomi could have only been substantiated, through the
\nstatement of Kalabhai Ganeshbhai who had allegedly actually seen the
\naccused Kishanbhai taking her away. According to the High Court, for
\nthe reasons best known to it, the prosecution did not produce Kalabhai
\nGaneshbhai as a witness. Even though according to the High Court the
\nabove-mentioned Kalabhai Ganeshbhai was a resident in one of the
\npeon quarters, and was also a government servant, the absence of the<\/p>\n
evidence of the above factual position, results in a deficiency in the
\nconfirmation of a factual position of substantial importance, from the
\nchain of events necessary for establishing the last seen evidence.
\n(i) It is also apparent, that there is no dispute about the recovery of a
\ngreen blood stained \u201cdupatta\u201d, from the person of the victim. The green
\nblood stained \u201cdupatta\u201d (veil) was found by the medical officer while
\nconducting the post-mortem examination on Gomi. The existence of the
\ngreen \u201cdupatta\u201d was also duly mentioned in the post-mortem report.
\nAccording to the High Court, none of the prosecution witnesses had
\nreferred to the factum of the victim having worn a green \u201cdupatta\u201d.
\nAccording to the prosecution evidence, the deceased was wearing a red
\nfrock and panties, whereas, the accused was wearing a full sleeve white
\nshirt and green trousers. According to the High Court, if neither the
\nvictim nor the accused had a green \u201cdupatta\u201d, a question would arise, as
\nto how the green blood stained \u201cdupatta\u201d was found on the dead body of
\nthe victim. Even leading to the inference of the presence of a third party
\nat the time of occurrence. The above omission in not explaining the
\npresence of the green \u201cdupatta\u201d, has also been taken by the High Court,
\nas a glaring omission at the hands of the prosecution in the process of
\ninvestigation\/prosecution of the charges levelled against the accused
\nKishanbhai.
\n(j) While deposing before the Trial Court, Dinesh Karshanbhai
\nThakore PW6, affirmed that the accused-respondent Kishanbhai had
\napproached his \u201clari\u201d for the first time to purchase a \u201cdabeli\u201d on
\n27.2.2003. It is, therefore, apparent that Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore
\nPW6 had not known the accused-respondent before 27.2.2003. In the
\nabove view of the matter, it was imperative for the investigating agency
\nto hold a test identification parade in order to determine whether Dinesh
\nKarshanbhai Thakore PW6, had correctly identified the accused-
\nrespondent, as the person who had come to his \u201clari\u201d to purchase a
\n\u201cdabeli\u201d on 27.2.2003. And also whether he was the same person, who
\nhad stolen a knife from his \u201clari\u201d on 27.2.2003. This is also a serious
\ndeficiency in the investigation\/prosecution of the case.
\n(k) Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2, the complainant in the present
\ncase, during the course of his examination-in-chief, observed as under :
\n\u201cThis incident was occurred on 27\/2\/2003, on that day
\nLilaben came to my house for pregnancy. On the day of the
\nincident at 6.00 o clock in the evening I came to know that
\nGomiben the daughter of Lilaben is not found. Therefore,
\nall our relatives have started searching her. We went to the
\nquarter of my father, and inquired about the Gomiben, my
\nfather told that I saw Gomiben with Lalis Sister in law
\nbrother Kisan, he gave ice cream to Gomi. Therefore, we
\nhave searched in the quarters and other places. At around
\n8.00 o clock in the night kishan was coming from police
\nStation, we have started asking him, at that time along with
\nme Shri Jagabhai Molabhai, Mohanbhai Molabhai, Hirabhai
\nwere present. This police Chawky means Gulbai Tekra
\nPolice Chawky. He told me that I have left her at Jivivala
\nField. Therefore, we went at the Jivivala Field, at around
\n8.00 or 9.00 o clock, we went there and we found Gomiben
\nin dead conditions, she had a several injuries on her head
\nand other parts of the body. She was being raped.\u201d
\nFrom the above statement, it is apparent that Gomi was found missing
\nfor the first time at 6:00 pm. The search for her began immediately
\nthereafter. The search party met the accused-respondent Kishanbhai
\ncoming from the side of the police station at 8:00 p.m. All the
\nprosecution witnesses have been equivocal about the fact that Gomi
\nwent missing at about 6:00 p.m., i.e., the time when she was last seen in<\/p>\n
the company of the accused-respondent Kishanbhai, and thereafter, the
\nsearch party met Kishanbhai at 8:00 pm. In order to give credence to
\nthe prosecution version, it was imperative to establish that it was
\npossible for the accused-respondent Kishanbhai, after having taken
\nGomi at 6:00 p.m., to have stopped at the \u201clari\u201d of Dinesh Karshanbhai
\nThakore PW6, purchased a \u201cdabeli\u201d from him. Thereupon, to have had
\ntime to steal his knife, the accused-respondent proceeded on with Gomi
\nto Jivi\u2019s field. There ought to have been enough time for him thereafter
\nto have raped her, then assaulted her with bricks on her head and other
\nparts of the body leading to her death, and finally to cut her legs just
\nabove her ankles, to remove her anklets. He should thereupon have
\nalso had time to hide the knife used in the commission of the crime,
\nunder the stones. And thereafter further time, to have taken the anklets
\nto Mahavir Jewellers so as to pawn the same with Premchand
\nShankarlal Mehta, as also, time to execute a receipt in token thereof.
\nOver and above the above, he ought have had time, to visit his
\nresidence so as to able to wear a fresh shirt i.e., the shirt which he was
\nwearing when he was detained. After all that, he should have had time
\nto cover the area from Jivi\u2019s field to Premchand Shankarlal Mehta\u2019s shop
\nand further on from the above shop to his residence and finally from his
\nresidence till the place where he was detained. It is difficult to
\nappreciate how all the activities depicted in the prosecution story, could
\nhave been carried out from 6:00 p.m. on 27.2.2003 to 8:00 p.m. on the
\nsame day, i.e., all in all within a period of two hours. It is in the above
\ncontext that the cross-examination of Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki<\/p>\n
PW5, assume significance. Relevant extract from his cross-examination
\nis being reproduced hereunder :
\n\u201cIt is true that the accused was coming from police Chawky
\nat around 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. as I was not wearing the watch I
\ncannot say the exact time. It is true that it takes 15 to 20
\nminutes to go to Panjrapole from my quarters, and it will
\ntake 30 to 35 minutes to go to the field of JIVI. It is true that
\nit will taken half an hour to come to the Office of BSNL
\nthrough Jivi\u2019s Field and C.N. Vidhayalaya. It is true that
\nfrom the Jivis field towards Panjrapole and through
\nPanjrapole main road towards BSNL office, by walking it
\nwill take 40 minutes. It is true that both the roads are public
\nroads, and many people are passing through this road.\u201d
\n(emphasis is ours)
\nWhether or not the above sequence of events could have taken place in
\nthe time referred to above, would have been easily overcome if the
\nprosecution had placed on record a sketch map providing details with
\nregard to the distance between different places. In that event, it would
\nhave become possible to determine whether the activities at different
\nplaces, projected through the prosecution version of the incident were
\npossible. In the absence of any knowledge about the distance between
\nthe residence of the victim Gomi as well as that of the accused from the
\nPolytechnic or from Jivi\u2019s field; it would be impossible to ascertain the
\nquestions which emerge from the cross-examination of Naranbhai
\nManabhai Solanki PW5. Had a sketch map been prepared or details
\nwith regard to the distance been given, the courts concerned would have
\nbeen able to determine all that was alleged in the prosecution version of
\nthe incident. This deficiency in the prosecution evidence, must be
\nconstrued as a serious infirmity in the matter.
\n12. We would now like to deal with the discrepancies found in the
\nevidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court. We would<\/p>\n
also simultaneously summarise the effect of defences adopted on behalf
\nof the accused-respondent Kishanbhai. These aspects of the matter are
\nalso being summerised hereunder, so as to enable us to effectively deal
\nwith the submissions advanced at the behest of the State. These
\naspects of the matter are liable to be taken into consideration, to
\ndetermine whether or not, a complete chain of events stands proved to
\nestablish the guilt of the accused-respondent. The above considerations
\nare summarized hereunder:
\n(a) The post mortem report relied upon by the prosecution leaves no
\nroom for any doubt that injuries on the genitals of Gomi were post
\nmortem in nature. The question which arises for consideration is
\nwhether the injuries under reference had been inflicted on the victim
\nfirst, and thereupon, rape was committed on the victim. It is natural to
\nassume, that the first act of aggression by the person who had
\ncommitted assault on Gomi, was by inflicting injuries on her head and
\nother parts of the body, only thereafter the legs just above the ankles,
\nwould have been cut (with the object of removing her anklets). It is not
\npossible for us to contemplate that the legs of the deceased were cut
\nwhilst she was in her senses, is incomprehensible and therefore, most
\nunlikely. Now, the question to be considered is, whether it was humanly
\npossible for even the most perverted person, to have committed rape on
\na child, who had been killed by causing injuries on head and other parts
\nof body, and after her feet had been severed from her legs. We would
\nhave no hesitation by responding in the negative. The prosecution in the
\ninstant case apparently projected a version including an act of rape,<\/p>\n
which is impossible to accept on the touchstone of logic and common
\nsense.
\n(b) The evidence produced by the prosecution also reveals, that
\npubic hair of the accused-respondent Kishanbhai, had been examined
\nby the scientific officer of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The report
\nsubmitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit 48) reveals, that
\nthere was neither any semen nor any blood on the pubic hair of the
\naccused. Reference to the possibility of there being blood on the public
\nhair of the accused-respondent Kishanbhai emerges from the fact, that
\nthe post mortem report of the deceased revealed, that there was blood
\non the vagina of the deceased. Whilst accusing the respondent-
\nKishanbhai of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, it
\nwas imperative for the prosecution to have kept in its mind the aforesaid
\naspects of the matter. Absence of semen or blood from the pubic hair of
\nthe accused-respondent, would prima facie exculpate him from the
\noffence of rape.
\n(c) According to the testimony of the complainant Bababhai
\nNaranbhai Solanki PW2, the accused-respondent Kishanbhai was
\nwearing a white shirt at the time of occurrence. It is, therefore, when a
\nwhite shirt was found covering the dead body of the victim Gomi, he had
\nidentified the same as the shirt which the accused-respondent
\nKishanbhai was wearing, before the offence was committed. From the
\nprosecution story, as it emerged from the statements of different
\nwitnesses, it is apparent that Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2, had
\nhad no occasion to have seen the accused-respondent Kishanbhai,<\/p>\n
wearing the said white shirt. When Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2,
\nwas questioned as to how he knew that the accused-respondent was
\nwearing a white shirt, when he first saw the shirt covering the dead body
\nof the victim, his response was, that he had been told about that by his
\nfather Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5. In the above view of the
\nmatter, the question arises whether the testimony of Bababhai,
\nNaranbhai Solanki PW2 about the shirt referred to above was truthful.
\nAnd whether his testimony can be described as fair and honest.
\n(d) Additionally when the accused\u2013respondent Kishanbhai was
\narrested, the T-shirt worn by him, was taken from him by recording a
\npanchnama. The said T-shirt is available on the record of the Trial
\nCourt as Exhibit-39. It is not a matter of dispute that the T-shirt (Exhibit
\n39), worn by the accused-respondent, Kishanbhai at the time of his
\narrest, is actually a white T-shirt with a trident design on it. But, as per
\nthe narration recorded by Bababhai Naranbhai PW2, contained in the
\ncomplaint which constituted the basis of registering the first information,
\nit is mentioned that the accused-respondent Kishanbhai was wearing a
\nblack T-shirt at the time of his detention. It is apparent from the factual
\nposition noticed hereinabove, that the factual position expressed by the
\ncomplainant Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2 was absolutely
\nincorrect, and contrary to the factual position. In the above view of the
\nmatter, a question would arise, whether the deposition of Bababhai
\nNaranbhai Solanki PW2 was fair and honest.
\n(e) According to the prosecution version of the incident, the search
\nparty met the accused-respondent Kishanbhai at about 8:00 p.m. The<\/p>\n
said party had thereupon proceeded to Jivi\u2019s field, from where the dead
\nbody of the victim was recovered. According to Naranbhai Manabhai
\nSolanki PW5, after finding the dead body, he had proceeded to the
\npolice station. At the police station, he had requested the police
\npersonnel to visit the site of occurrence. Simultaneously, Naranbhai
\nManabhai Solanki PW5 had stated, that when enquiries were being
\nmade from Kishanbhai, police personnel had taken away the accused-
\nrespondent. According to the testimony of Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki
\nPW5, therefore, at the most, the accused-respondent must be deemed
\nto have been taken into police custody from about 9:00 p.m. on
\n27.2.2003. It is apparent, that the occurrence had come to the
\nknowledge of a large number of persons constituting the search party,
\nwhen the victim\u2019s body was found on Jivi\u2019s field. Even before that, the
\naccused-respondent was already in police custody. As if, the police had
\nalready concluded on the guilt of Kishanbhai, even before the recovery
\nof Gomi\u2019s body from Jivi\u2019s farm. Despite the above, the arrest of the
\naccused-respondent Kishanbhai was shown at 6.40 a.m. on 28.3.2003.
\nThe detention of the accused-respondent Kishanbhai from 9:00 pm on
\n27.2.2003 to 6.40 a.m. on 28.2.2003, shows that the prosecution has not
\npresented the case in the manner the events unfolded to the
\ninvestigating agencies.
\n(f) It also needs to be noticed, that the inquest panchnama besides
\nmentioning the amputation of the legs of the victim above her ankles,
\nalso records, that the silver anklets worn by Gomi were missing. In this
\nbehalf, it would also be relevant to mention, that even though the inquest
\npanchnama was drawn at 0030 a.m. on 28.2.2003, the complaint<\/p>\n
resulting in the registration of the first information report was lodged by
\nBababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2 at 3:05 a.m. on 28.02.2003. It is
\nstrange, that the inquest panchnama should be drawn before the
\nregistration of the first information report. It is also strange as to how,
\nwhile drawing the inquest panchnama, the panchas of the same could
\nhave recorded, that after amputation of the victim\u2019s legs, her silver
\nanklets had been taken away by the offender. There was no occasion
\nfor the panchas to have known, that Gomi used to wear silver anklets.
\nAccordingly, there was no occasion for them to have recorded that the
\nsilver anklets usually worn by Gomi had been taken away by the
\noffender.
\n(g) From the prosecution version (emerging from the evidence
\nrecorded before the Trial Court), it is apparent, that the search party, as
\nalso, the relatives of the victim were aware at about 8:00 p.m. on
\n27.2.2003 that Gomi had been murdered, with a possibility of her having
\nbeen raped also, and her silver anklets had been stolen. Despite the
\nabove, no complaint whatsoever came to be filed in connection with the
\nabove occurrence at the police station on 27.2.2003, despite the close
\ncoordination between the search party and the police from 8:00 pm
\nonwards no 27.2.2003 itself. The complaint leading to the filing of the
\nfirst information was made at about 3:05 a.m. on 28.2.2003. Not only is
\nthe delay of seven hours in the registration of the complaint
\nununderstandable, but the same is also rendered extremely suspicious,
\non the account of the fact that the accused-respondent Kishanbhai is
\nacknowledged to be in police detention since 9:00 p.m. on 27.2.2003
\nitself. This may be the result of fudging the time and date at which the
\nvictim Gomi went missing, as also, the time and date on which the body
\nof the victim was discovered resulting in the discovery of the occurrence
\nitself. The question which arises for consideration is, whether the
\ninvestigation agency adopted the usual practice of padding so as to
\ndepict the occurrence in a manner different from the actual occurrence.
\nA question also arises as to why it was necessary for the investigating
\nagency to adopt the above practice, despite the fact that it was depicted
\nas an open and shut case.
\n(h) As noticed above, that from the statements of Bababhai
\nNaranbhai Solanki PW2 and Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5, it is
\napparent that the accused was detained by the police informally around
\n9:00 p.m. on 27.2.2003. It is also essential to notice, that an
\nacknowledgement was made to the above effect even by Sub Inspector
\nNaranbhai Lalbhai Desai PW13, who had commenced investigation of
\nthe crime under reference. It is apparent that when Bababhai Naranbhai
\nSolanki PW2, had contacted him with details about the offence under
\nreference, he had not recorded any entry in the station diary before
\nleaving the police station. This constitutes a serious lapse in itself. In
\nhis cross-examination, he had affirmed that he was taken by Bababhai
\nNaranbhai Solanki PW2, i.e., the complainant to the scene of
\noccurrence. Having gone to the scene of occurrence, and having made
\non the spot investigation, he acknowledged having returned to the police
\nstation. In his statement, he accepted, that when he had returned to the
\npolice station after visiting the site of occurrence, the accused-
\nrespondent Kishanbhai was already present at the police station. When
\nquestioned, he could not tender any explanation, as to how the accused-<\/p>\n
respondent Kishanbhai had come to the police station. In his statement
\nas a witness, he had expressed, that for the first time he had seen the
\naccused-respondent Kishanbhai only on 28.2.2003 at around 5:30 a.m.
\nWhereafter, the accused-respondent was formally arrested at 6.40 a.m.
\nThe inconsistency between the statements made by the complainant
\n(Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2) and his father (Naranbhai Manabhai
\nSolanki PW5) on the one hand, and by Sub-Inspector Naranbhai Lalbhai
\nDesai PW13 on the other, discloses a serious contradiction with respect
\nto the time of the detention of the accused-respondent Kishanbhai. It
\nneeds to be noticed, that it was an aberration for Naranbhai Lalbhai
\nDesai PW13, to have left the police station without making an entry in
\nthe station diary. Why should a police officer, investigating a crime of
\nsuch a heinous nature, commit such a lapse? The fact that he did so, is
\nnot a matter of dispute. The truth of the matter is, that Naranbhai
\nLalbhai Desai PW13, did not make any note either in the station diary or
\nin any other register; he did not take any informal complaint from the
\ncomplainant, even though he had been apprised about the commission
\nof an offence. It is therefore clear that Naranbhai Lalbhai Desai PW13,
\nhad left the police station without making an entry depicting the purpose
\nof his departure. All this further adds to the suspicion of the manner in
\nwhich investigation of the matter was conducted.
\n(i) So far as the statement of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6 is
\nconcerned, he had supported the prosecution story by deposing, that the
\naccused had visited his \u201clari\u201d with a small child, about seven years old.
\nHe had further asserted, that the accused-respondent Kishanbhai had
\npurchased a \u201cdabeli\u201d from him. He had also testified that the accused \u2013
\nrespondent had asked for a knife but he had refused to give it to him
\nbecause, at the time when the accused-respondent had visited the \u201clari\u201d,
\nthere were several customers waiting for purchasing \u201cdabelis\u201d. He
\nfurther confirmed, that the accused-respondent had stolen a knife, used
\nby him for cutting vegetables from his \u201clari\u201d. Another important aspect of
\nthe matter, out of the statement of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6 is,
\nthat he identified the shirt that the accused-respondent Kishanbhai was
\nwearing, at the time when he had visited his \u201clari\u201d for purchasing a
\n\u201cdabeli\u201d on 27.2.2003. He had also identified the red frock which the
\nvictim was wearing at the said juncture. Additionally, he identified the
\nknife which the accused-respondent Kishanbhai had stolen from his
\n\u201clari\u201d. The statement of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6 was
\nconsidered to be untrustworthy by the High Court, primarily for the
\nreason that he could identify the shirt worn by the accused-respondent,
\nKishanbhai when he had approached his \u201clari\u201d for the purchase of a
\n\u201cdabeli\u201d, at which juncture, the accused-respondent Kishanbhai may
\nhave remained at the \u201clari\u201d at the most for 10 to 15 minutes, when there
\nwas a rush of customers. As against the above, he had remained with
\nthe accused-respondent Kishanbhai at Navrangpur Police Station,
\nAhmedabad, for approximately four hours. During the course of his
\ncross-examination, he could not depose about the sort of shirt which the
\naccused respondent was wearing, at the Navrangpur Police Station,
\nAhmedabad. It is, therefore, apparent that Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore
\nPW6 was deposing far in excess of what he remembered, and\/or in
\nexcess of what was actually to his knowledge. He appears to be a<\/p>\n
tutored witness. This aspect of the matter also renders the testimony of
\nDinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6, suspicious.
\n(j) There is yet another aspect of the controversy relating to Dinesh
\nKarshanbhai Thakore PW6. The investigating agency became aware
\nfrom the disclosure statement of the accused-respondent Kishanbhai
\ntendered on 1.3.2003, that he had procured the weapon of offence by
\nway of theft from the \u201clari\u201d of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6. The
\nabove knife was recovered at the instance of the accused-respondent
\nKishanbhai on 1.3.2003, in the presence of panch witnesses. In the
\nabove view of the matter, in the ordinary course of investigation, it would
\nhave been imperative for the investigating agency to have immediately
\napproached Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6, to record his statement.
\nHis statement was extremely important for the simple reason, that it
\nwould have connected the accused with the weapon with which the
\ncrime had been committed, as also with the victim. Despite the above,
\nthe investigating agency recorded the statement of Dinesh Karshanbhai
\nThakore PW6, for the first time on 4.3.2003. No reason is forthcoming
\nwhy his statement was not recorded either on 1.3.2003, or on the
\nintervening dates before 4.3.2003. The inordinate delay by the
\ninvestigating agency, in confirming the version of the accused-
\nrespondent, in respect of the weapon of the crime, renders the
\nprosecution version suspicious. Such delay would not have taken place
\nin the ordinary course of investigation. If there were good reasons for
\nthe delay, they ought to have been made known to the Trial Court by
\nway of reliable evidence. This fact too raises a doubt about the
\ncorrectness of the prosecution version of the incident.<\/p>\n
The above discrepancies in the prosecution version, were duly noticed
\nby the High Court. These constitute some of the glaring instances
\nrecorded in the impugned order. Other instances of contradiction were
\nalso noticed in the impugned order. It is not necessary for us to record
\nall of them, since the above instances themselves are sufficient to draw
\nsome vitally important inferences. Some of the inferences drawn from
\nthe above, are being noticed below. The prosecution\u2019s case which
\nmainly rests on the testimony of Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2,
\nNaranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5 and Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore
\nPW6, is unreliable because of the glairing inconsistencies in their
\nstatements. The testimony of the investigating officer Naranbhai Lalbhai
\nDesai PW13 shows fudging and padding, making his deposition
\nuntrustworthy. In the absence of direct oral evidence, the prosecution
\ncase almost wholly rested on the above mentioned witnesses. It is for
\nthe above reasons, that the High Court through the impugned order,
\nconsidered it just and appropriate to grant the accused-respondent
\nKishanbhai, the benefit of doubt.
\n13. Learned counsel for the appellant, in order to support the
\nsubmissions advanced before this Court in the present criminal appeal
\n(which have been recorded in paragraph 9 hereinabove), with judicial
\nprecedent, placed reliance on a number of judgments rendered by this
\nCourt. We shall now summarise hereunder, the judgment relied upon,
\nas also, the submissions of the learned counsel on the basis thereof:
\n(a) Referring to the judgment rendered by this Court in Ram Prasad &
\nOrs. v. State of UP, (1974) 1 SCR 650, it was asserted at the hands of<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the appellant, that non-examination of some of
\nthe eye-witnesses would not introduce a fatal infirmity to the prosecution
\ncase, specially when conviction could be based on evidence produced
\nby the prosecution.
\n(b) Reference was also made to Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing
\nCamansing & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 145, and it was pointed out, that this
\nCourt has ruled that in cases where witnesses already examined were
\nreliable, and the testimony coming from the mouth was unimpeachable,
\na court could safely act upon the same uninfluenced by the factum of
\nnon-examination of other witnesses. Yet again the conclusion was, that
\nreliable evidence should be available, to determine the culpability of an
\naccused, and in the above view of the matter it would be irrelevant
\nwhether some others who could have deposed on the facts in issue had
\nnot been examined.
\n(c) Based on the judgment rendered in Laxman Naik v. State of
\nOrissa, (1994) 3 SCC 381, it was submitted, that in a case relating to a
\nseven year old child, who had been raped and murdered by her own
\nuncle, relying upon incriminating evidence and testimony of witnesses, it
\ncame to be held that when circumstances form a complete chain of
\nincidents, then the same is sufficient to establish, that the accused is the
\nperpetrator of the crime and conviction can be based on the complete
\nchain of circumstantial evidence.
\n(d) Based on the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000)
\n1 SCC 471, where four years\u2019 girl child was a victim of rape and murder,
\nit was contended, that this Court had held that it was open to a court to<\/p>\n
presume that the accused knew about the incriminating material or dead
\nbody due to his involvement in the alleged offence. When he discloses
\nthe location of such incriminating material without disclosing the manner
\nin which he came to know of the same, the Court would presume that
\nthe accused knew about the incriminating material.
\n(e) Relying on the judgment in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, 2003
\n(2) SCC 518, it was contended, that where the prosecution case is fully
\nestablished by the testimony of witnesses which stood corroborated by
\nmedical evidence, any failure or omission of the investigating officer
\ncould not be treated as sufficient to render the prosecution case doubtful
\nor unworthy of belief. This determination leads to the same inference,
\nnamely, when reliable evidence to prove the guilt of an accused is
\navailable, lapses in investigation would not result in grant of the benefit
\nof doubt to an accused.
\n(f) Referring to State Government of NCT Delhi v. Sunil, (2001) 1
\nSCC 652, it was asserted, that in a case where a child of four years was
\nbrutally raped and murdered and incriminating articles were recovered
\non the basis of the statement of the accused, the same could not be
\ndiscarded on the technical ground that no independent witness was
\nexamined.
\n(g) Referring to the judgment in Joseph v. State of Kerala, (2005) 5
\nSCC 197, wherein, according to the learned counsel, it was held that
\nwhere the circumstances proved form themselves into a complete chain
\nunerringly pointing to the guilt of the appellant, then the same can be the
\nbasis of the conviction of the accused. This, according to learned<\/p>\n
counsel, represents the manner of proving the guilt of an accused based
\non circumstantial evidence.
\n(h) Based on the judgment in State of UP v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC
\n114, it was contended that it could not be laid down as a rule of
\nuniversal application that if there is any delay in examination of a
\nparticular witness, the prosecution version becomes suspect.
\nTherefore, the facts surrounding the delay ought to be considered in
\nevery case to determine whether or not the testimony is rendered
\nsuspicious.
\n(i) Relying on the judgment in Bishnu Prasad Sinha v State of
\nAssam, (2007) 11 SCC 467, it was submitted, that in the above case
\nwhere a child of 7-8 years was a victim of rape and murder, the grounds
\nthat the investigation was done in an improper manner did not render
\nthe entire prosecution case to be false. Namely, where reliable
\nevidence is available, the same would determine the guilt of an
\naccused.
\n(j) Referring to the judgment in Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of
\nUttaranchal, (2010) 2 SCC 583, it was asserted, that where a child of
\nfive years was a victim of rape and murder and the accused disclosed
\nthe location of the crime as also of the incriminating articles, the said
\ndisclosure was admissible and would constitute a complete chain in the
\ncircumstances. Further, according to the learned counsel, it was held
\nthat the inquest panchnama may not contain every detail and the
\nabsence of some details would not affect the veracity of the deposition
\nmade by witnesses. Needless to mention, that absence of vital links in<\/p>\n
the claim of circumstantial evidence would result in the exoneration of
\nthe accused.
\n(k) Reliance was placed on Sambhu Das v. State of Assam, (2010)
\n10 SCC 374, so as to contend, that any discrepancy occurring in the
\ninquest report or the post mortem report could neither be fatal nor be
\ntermed as a suspicious circumstance as would warrant a benefit to the
\naccused and the resultant dismissal of the prosecution case. Needless
\nto add, that there should be sufficient independent evidence to establish
\nthe guilt of the accused.
\n(l) Based on the judgment in Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of
\nMaharashtra, (2011) 12 SCC 56, it was contended, that in a case of
\nmurder and rape of a ten year old child, it was found that where the
\ncircumstances taken cumulatively led to the conclusion of guilt and no
\nalternative explanation is given by the accused, the conviction ought to
\nbe upheld. This case reiterates that in a case based on circumstantial
\nevidence the evidence should be such as would point to the inference of
\nguilt of the accused alone and none others.
\n(m) Relying on Rajendra PrahladraoWasnik v. State of Maharashtra,
\n(2012) 4 SCC 37, it was submitted that where a three years old child
\nwas a victim of rape and murder by the accused who lured her under the
\npretext of buying biscuits, circumstances showed the manner in which
\nthe trust\/belief\/relationship was violated resulting in affirming the death
\npenalty imposed on the accused.
\n14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
\nadvanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant, which<\/p>\n
have been duly noticed in paragraph 9 hereinabove. It is also relevant
\nfor us to record, that the learned counsel for the appellant did not
\nadvance a single submission in addition to the contentions we have
\nnoticed in paragraph 9 above. The submissions advanced at the hands
\nof the learned counsel for the appellant, were sought to be supported by
\njudgments rendered by this Court, all of which have been referred to in
\nparagraph 13 above. The submissions advanced at the hands of the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant, based on each of the judgments cited,
\nhave also been recorded by us in the said paragraph. Having
\nconsidered the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case,
\nspecially the glaring lapses committed in the investigation and
\nprosecution of the case (recorded in paragraph 11 of the instant
\njudgment), as also the inconsistencies in the evidence produced by the
\nprosecution (summarized in paragraph 12 hereinabove), we are of the
\nconsidered view, that each one of the submissions advanced at the
\nhands of the learned counsel for the appellant is meritless. For the
\ncircumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution, primary reliance
\nhas been placed on the statements of Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki
\nPW2, Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5, and Dinesh Karshanbhai
\nThakore PW6. By demonstrating inconsistencies and infirmities in the
\nstatements of the above witnesses, their statements have also been
\nrendered suspicious and accordingly unreliable. There is also a serious
\nimpression of fudging and padding at the hands of the agencies
\ninvolved. As a matter of fact, the lack of truthfulness of the statements
\nof witnesses has been demonstrated by means of simple logic emerging
\nfrom the factual position expressed through different prosecution
\nwitnesses (summarized in paragraphs 11 and 12 above). The evidence
\nproduced to prove the charges, has been systematically shattered,
\nthereby demolishing the prosecution version. More than all that, is the
\nnon production of evidence which the prosecution has unjustifiably
\nwithheld, resulting in dashing all the States efforts to the ground. It is
\nnot necessary for us to record our detailed determination on the
\nsubmissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the
\nappellant, for such reasons clearly emerge from the factual position
\nnoticed in paragraphs 11 and 12 hereinabove. Recording of reasons all
\nover again, would just be a matter of repetition. In view of the above,
\nwe find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
\n15. The investigating officials and the prosecutors involved in
\npresenting this case, have miserably failed in discharging their duties.
\nThey have been instrumental in denying to serve the cause of justice.
\nThe misery of the family of the victim Gomi has remained unredressed.
\nThe perpetrators of a horrendous crime, involving extremely ruthless
\nand savage treatment to the victim, have remained unpunished. A
\nheartless and merciless criminal, who has committed an extremely
\nheinous crime, has gone scot-free. He must be walking around in
\nAhmedabad, or some other city\/town in India, with his head held high. A
\ncriminal on the move. Fearless and fearsome. Fearless now, because
\nhe could not be administered the punishment, he ought to have suffered.
\nAnd fearsome, on account of his having remained unaffected by the
\nbrutal crime committed by him. His actions now, know of no barriers.
\nHe could be expected to act in an unfathomable savage manner,
\nuncomprehendable to a sane mind.<\/p>\n
16. As we discharge our responsibility in deciding the instant criminal
\nappeal, we proceed to apply principles of law, and draw inferences.
\nFor, that is our job. We are trained, not to be swayed by mercy or
\ncompassion. We are trained to adjudicate without taking sides, and
\nwithout being mindful of the consequences. We are required to
\nadjudicate on the basis of well drawn parameters. We have done all
\nthat. Despite thereof, we feel crestfallen, heartbroken and sorrowful.
\nWe could not serve the cause of justice, to an innocent child. We could
\nnot even serve the cause of justice, to her immediate family. The
\nmembers of the family of Gomi must never have stopped cursing
\nthemselves, for not adequately protecting their child from a prowler, who
\nhad snatched an opportunity to brutalise her, during their lapse in
\nattentiveness. And if the prosecution version about motive is correct,
\nthe crime was committed for a mere consideration of Rs.1,000\/-.
\n17. Every time there is an acquittal, the consequences are just the
\nsame, as have been noticed hereinabove. The purpose of justice has
\nnot been achieved. There is also another side to be taken into
\nconsideration. We have declared the accused-respondent innocent, by
\nupholding the order of the High Court, giving him the benefit of doubt.
\nHe may be truly innocent, or he may have succeeded because of the
\nlapses committed by the investigating\/prosecuting teams. If he has
\nescaped, despite being guilty, the investigating and the prosecution
\nagencies must be deemed to have seriously messed it all up. And if the
\naccused was wrongfully prosecuted, his suffering is unfathomable. Here
\nalso, the investigating and prosecuting agencies are blameworthy. It is
\ntherefore necessary, not to overlook even the hardship suffered by the<\/p>\n
accused, first during the trial of the case, and then at the appellate
\nstages. An innocent person does not deserve to suffer the turmoil of a
\nlong drawn litigation, spanning over a decade, or more. The expenses
\nincurred by an accused in his defence can dry up all his financial
\nresources \u2013 ancestral or personal. Criminal litigation could also
\nordinarily involve financial borrowings. An accused can be expected to
\nbe under a financial debt, by the time his ordeal is over.
\n18. Numerous petitions are filed before this Court, praying for
\nanticipatory bail (under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)
\nat the behest of persons apprehending arrest, or for bail (under Section
\n439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) at the behest of persons already
\nunder detention. In a large number of such petitions, the main
\ncontention is of false implication. Likewise, many petitions seeking
\nquashing of criminal proceeding (filed under Section 482 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure) come up for hearing day after day, wherein also,
\nthe main contention is of fraudulent entanglement\/involvement. In
\nmatters where prayers for anticipatory bail or for bail made under
\nSections 438 and 439 are denied, or where a quashing petition filed
\nunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is declined, the
\nperson concerned may have to suffer periods of incarceration for
\ndifferent lengths of time. They suffer captivity and confinement most of
\nthe times (at least where they are accused of serious offences), till the
\nculmination of their trial. In case of their conviction, they would continue
\nin confinement during the appellate stages also, and in matters which
\nreach the Supreme Court, till the disposal of their appeals by this Court.
\nBy the time they are acquitted at the appellate stage, they may have<\/p>\n
undergone long years of custody. When acquitted by this Court, they
\nmay have suffered imprisonment of 10 years, or more. When they are
\nacquitted (by the trial or the appellate court), no one returns to them;
\nwhat was wrongfully taken away from them. The system responsible for
\nthe administration of justice, is responsible for having deprived them of
\ntheir lives, equivalent to the period of their detention. It is not untrue,
\nthat for all the wrong reasons, innocent persons are subjected to suffer
\nthe ignominy of criminal prosecution and to suffer shame and
\nhumiliation. Just like it is the bounden duty of a court to serve the cause
\nof justice to the victim, so also, it is the bounden duty of a court to
\nensure that an innocent person is not subjected to the rigours of criminal
\nprosecution.
\n19. The situation referred to above needs to be remedied. For the
\nsaid purpose, adherence to a simple procedure could serve the
\nobjective. We accordingly direct, that on the completion of the
\ninvestigation in a criminal case, the prosecuting agency should apply its
\nindependent mind, and require all shortcomings to be rectified, if
\nnecessary by requiring further investigation. It should also be ensured,
\nthat the evidence gathered during investigation is truly and faithfully
\nutilized, by confirming that all relevant witnesses and materials for
\nproving the charges are conscientiously presented during the trial of a
\ncase. This would achieve two purposes. Only persons against whom
\nthere is sufficient evidence, will have to suffer the rigors of criminal
\nprosecution. By following the above procedure, in most criminal
\nprosecutions, the concerned agencies will be able to successfully
\nestablish the guilt of the accused.<\/p>\n
20. Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice
\ndelivery system, in serving the cause of justice. Likewise, every
\nacquittal should ordinarily lead to the inference, that an innocent person
\nwas wrongfully prosecuted. It is therefore, essential that every State
\nshould put in place a procedural mechanism, which would ensure that
\nthe cause of justice is served, which would simultaneously ensure the
\nsafeguard of interest of those who are innocent. In furtherance of the
\nabove purpose, it is considered essential to direct the Home Department
\nof every State, to examine all orders of acquittal and to record reasons
\nfor the failure of each prosecution case. A standing committee of senior
\nofficers of the police and prosecution departments, should be vested
\nwith aforesaid responsibility. The consideration at the hands of the
\nabove committee, should be utilized for crystalizing mistakes committed
\nduring investigation, and\/or prosecution, or both. The Home Department
\nof every State Government will incorporate in its existing training
\nprogrammes for junior investigation\/prosecution officials course- content
\ndrawn from the above consideration. The same should also constitute
\ncourse-content of refresher training programmes, for senior
\ninvestigating\/prosecuting officials. The above responsibility for
\npreparing training programmes for officials, should be vested in the
\nsame committee of senior officers referred to above. Judgments like the
\none in hand (depicting more than 10 glaring lapses in the
\ninvestigation\/prosecution of the case), and similar other judgments, may
\nalso be added to the training programmes. The course content will be
\nreviewed by the above committee annually, on the basis of fresh inputs,
\nincluding emerging scientific tools of investigation, judgments of Courts,<\/p>\n
and on the basis of experiences gained by the standing committee while
\nexamining failures, in unsuccessful prosecution of cases. We further
\ndirect, that the above training programme be put in place within 6
\nmonths. This would ensure that those persons who handle sensitive
\nmatters concerning investigation\/prosecution are fully trained to handle
\nthe same. Thereupon, if any lapses are committed by them, they would
\nnot be able to feign innocence, when they are made liable to suffer
\ndepartmental action, for their lapses.
\n21. On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the concerned
\ninvestigating\/prosecuting official(s) responsible for such acquittal must
\nnecessarily be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case,
\nwhether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer
\nmust suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental
\naction, whenever called for. Taking into consideration the seriousness
\nof the matter, the concerned official may be withdrawn from investigative
\nresponsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely on his
\nculpability. We also feel compelled to require the adoption of some
\nindispensable measures, which may reduce the malady suffered by
\nparties on both sides of criminal litigation. Accordingly we direct, the
\nHome Department of every State Government, to formulate a procedure
\nfor taking action against all erring investigating\/prosecuting
\nofficials\/officers. All such erring officials\/officers identified, as
\nresponsible for failure of a prosecution case, on account of sheer
\nnegligence or because of culpable lapses, must suffer departmental
\naction. The above mechanism formulated would infuse seriousness in
\nthe performance of investigating and prosecuting duties, and would ensure that investigation and prosecution are purposeful and decisive.
\nThe instant direction shall also be given effect to within 6 months.
\n22. A copy of the instant judgment shall be transmitted by the
\nRegistry of this Court, to the Home Secretaries of all State Governments
\nand Union Territories, within one week. All the concerned Home
\nSecretaries, shall ensure compliance of the directions recorded above.
\nThe records of consideration, in compliance with the above direction,
\nshall be maintained.
\n23. We hope and trust the Home Department of the State of Gujarat,
\nwill identify the erring officers in the instant case, and will take
\nappropriate departmental action against them, as may be considered
\nappropriate, in accordance with law.
\n24. The instant criminal appeal is accordingly disposed of.
\n\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.J.
\n(C.K. Prasad)
\n\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.J.
\n(Jagdish Singh Khehar)
\nNew Delhi;
\nJanuary 7, 2014.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
REPORTABLE\u2019 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1485 OF 2008 State of Gujarat \u2026 Appellant Versus Kishanbhai Etc. \u2026 Respondents J U D G M E N T Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. A complaint was lodged at Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, alleging the kidnapping\/abduction of a six year […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[481],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16385","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-481"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16385","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16385"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16385\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16388,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16385\/revisions\/16388"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}