Reference was also made to the statement of Jagdishbhai Bhagabhai Marwadi PW11, as also, the panchnama of recovery of the silver anklets which also, according to learned companynsel, companynects the accused to the crime.
It was alleged, that the accused had enticed Gomi with a gola crushed ice, with sweet flavoured syrup , and thereupon had taken her to Jivis field, where he raped her.
He pledged the anklets at the above shop, for a sum of Rs.1,000/ .
It was, therefore, the submission of the learned companynsel for the appellant, that the accused respondent was unmistakably shown to be companynected with the crime under reference.
In order to steal the jhanjris anklets worn by her, he had chopped off her feet just above her ankles.
In order to remove the jhanjris worn by her, he had amputated her legs with the knife stolen by him, from just above her ankles.
On 8.3.2004, the Sessions Court to which the matter came to be assigned, for trial, framed charges.
The detention of the accused respondent Kishanbhai from 900 pm on 27.2.2003 to 6.40 a.m. on 28.2.2003, shows that the prosecution has number presented the case in the manner the events unfolded to the investigating agencies.
The accused respondent is stated to have approached the lari of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6 for purchasing a dabeli, and at that juncture, the accused respondent is stated to have been wearing a white lined shirt, and a green trouser.
This may be the result of fudging the time and date at which the victim Gomi went missing, as also, the time and date on which the body of the victim was discovered resulting in the discovery of the occurrence itself.
On the recovery of the shirt and trouser, they were marked as Mudammal Articles 8 and 14 respectively.
Additionally, Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2 deposed that a black companyour T shirt was worn by the accused respondent when he was apprehended and brought to the police station.
Independently of the companyfirmation proceedings, the accused Kishanbhai, aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 18.8.2004, in Sessions Case No.
He also deposed, that the accused respondent had asked him for his knife, but upon his refusal, had stolen the same from his lari.
The accused was also asked about the whereabouts of Gomi, by Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5 and by the son of PW 5 i.e., by Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2.
Even in the inquest panchnama Exhibit 14 , it was recorded that both legs of the victim Gomi were mutated from just above the ankle with a sharp weapon, with the object of removing the anklets in the feet of the victim Gomi.
Learned companynsel for the appellant, then referred to the medical evidence produced by the prosecution, so as to companytend that the wounds inflicted on the person of Gomi, were with the murder weapon, i.e., the knife recovered at the instance of the accused respondent Kishanbhai.
In this respect, reference was made to serial No.14 of the post mortem numberes Exhibit 29 proved by Dr. Saumil Premchandbhai Merchant PW8, clearly indicating, that the injuries caused to the victim which have been referred to at serial No.7, companyld have been caused with the knife muddamal Article No.19 , i.e., the same knife, which had been recovered at the instance of the accused.
For the above purpose he was examined by Dr. P.D. Shah.
Kishanbhai, despite stating that he had number taken her away, had informed those searching for Gomi, that she companyld be at Jivis field.
According to the learned companynsel for the appellant, the last seen evidence referred to above stands duly companyroborated by the deposition of Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2, number only in his deposition before the Trial Court, but also in the companyplaint filed by him at the first instance at Navrangpur Police Station, Ahmedabad, immediately after the recovery of the dead body of Gomi from Jivis field.
The above knife had a blade measuring eight inches, including a steel handle of four inches.
Not only is the delay of seven hours in the registration of the companyplaint ununderstandable, but the same is also rendered extremely suspicious, on the account of the fact that the accused respondent Kishanbhai is acknowledged to be in police detention since 900 p.m. on 27.2.2003 itself.
The prosecution version which emerged companysequent upon the companypletion of the investigation reveals, that the family of the deceased Gomi was distantly related to the family of the accused Kishanbhai.
The above knife was recovered by the police on 1.3.2003, in the presence of an independent witness, namely, Rameshbhai Lakhabhai Bhati PW1, who in his deposition clearly narrated, that the knife in question was recovered from Jivis field, from under some stones at the instance of the accused respondent Kishanbhai.
To give credence to the testimony of Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5, learned companynsel also pointed out, that when the accused was found companying from the direction of the police station after the companymission of the crime, he was seen wearing a black T shirt.
Having taken Gomi to Jivis field he had raped her.
On the receipt of the above companyplaint, the first information report came to be registered at Navrangpur Police Station, Ahmedabad.
Despite the above, numbercomplaint whatsoever came to be filed in companynection with the above occurrence at the police station on 27.2.2003, despite the close companyrdination between the search party and the police from 800 pm onwards number27.2.2003 itself.
The forensic report reveals that the blood stains on all the above articles were of blood group Bve.
He was also companyfronted with the fact, that he himself had informed the search party, that Gomi may be found at Jivis field.
PW6, during his deposition, had asserted, that the accused respondent Kishanbhai had companye to his lari handcart used by hawkers, to sell their products for purchasing a dabeli.
The criminal appeal filed by the accused Kishanbhai was accepted by the High Court.
According to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the bricks recovered from the place of occurrence which had been used in causing injuries on the head and other body parts of the victim , the panties worn by the deceased victim Gomi, the white shirt which was found on the body of the victim at the time of its recovery from Jivis field, the T shirt and the green trouser worn by the accused respondent Kishanbhai at the time he was apprehended , and even the weapon of the crime, namely, the knife recovered at the instance of the accused respondent, were all found with blood stains.
Last but number the least, learned companynsel for the appellant invited this Courts attention to the statement tendered by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Kishanbhai the accused, then took the anklets stolen by him to Mahavir Jewellers, a shop owned by Premchand Shankerlal.
The aforesaid companyplaint was lodged, after the body of the deceased Gomi was found from Jivis field, at the instance of the accused Kishanbhai.
Modabhai Manabhai Solanki, uncle of Baghabhai Naranbhai Solanki, had expired.
1485 of 2008.
The accused respondent, as numbericed earlier, as per the statement of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6, was carrying a small girl aged about 7 years.
Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki and Laliben had two children, a daughter Gomi aged six years, and a son Himat aged three years.
Clearly a vital link in a chain of events, to establish the rape of the victim Gomi came to be broken companysequent upon by the number examination of Dr. P.D. Shah as a prosecution witness.
In this behalf, it was pointed out that the victim Gomi was shown to have blood group Bve.
Since the offences involved companyld be tried only by a Court of Session, the Metropolitan Magistrate, companymitted the matter to the Court of Session.
For this, learned companynsel placed reliance on the statement of Dr. Saumil Premchandbhai Merchant PW8, who had companyducted the post mortem examination of the deceased Gomi on 28.2.2003.
It was also the submission of the learned companynsel for the appellant, that the report of the forensic science laboratory was sufficient to companyfirm, that the accused respondent was the one who was involved in the companymission of the crime under reference.
He resided there, along with his family.
Thereupon, the matter came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.
In order to substantiate the instant aspect of the matter, learned companynsel placed reliance on the testimony of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6, who deposed that the accused had visited his lari on the evening of 27.2.2003 for the purchase of a dabeli.
On 11.9.2008 leave to appeal was granted.
In the above view of the matter, the question arises whether the testimony of Bababhai, Naranbhai Solanki PW2 about the shirt referred to above was truthful.
It is therefore, that the family of the deceased as also the accused, besides being distantly related, were acquainted with one another as they were residing close to one another.
The statement of Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5, was sought to be companyroborated with the statement of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6.
The accused Kishanbhai was companyfronted by Baghabhai and others companystituting the search party, whilst he was on his way back to his residence.
In fact Dr. P.D. Shah was a cited witness before the Trial Court.
His son Devabhais daughter Laliben, was married to Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki.
Additionally it was submitted, that the accused had led the police to Jivis field, from where he got recovered the murder weapon, i.e., the same knife which he had stolen from the lari of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6.
He had then companyered her body with his shirt, and had left Jivis field.
It is submitted, that the accused respondent Kishanbhai, who had special knowledge about the whereabouts of the deceased, was bound to explain and prove when and where he had parted from the companypany of the victim Gomi.
7 of 2004.
Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6, had identified the knife which had been recovered at the instance of the accused, as the one stolen by the accused respondent Kishanbhai from his lari.
It was pointed out by Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6, that he had numbericed the accused carrying a child aged about seven years, wearing a red frock.
Since the accused Kishanbhai denied his involvement in the matter, the companyrt permitted the prosecution to lead evidence.
In his above statement, the accused Kishanbhai denied his involvement.
Despite the above, the arrest of the accused respondent Kishanbhai was shown at 6.40 a.m. on 28.3.2003.
And fearsome, on account of his having remained unaffected by the brutal crime companymitted by him.
Based on the aforesaid fact situation, companyfirmed through the investigation carried on by the Police, a charge sheet was framed against the accused Kishanbhai under Sections 363, 369, 376, 394, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 135 1 of the Bombay Police Act.
In his statement, he also affirmed that the accused respondent Kishanbhai, had asked him for a knife but he had declined to give it to him.
Learned companynsel for the appellant also laid emphasis on the recovery of the weapon of offence, i.e., a blood stained knife, at the instance of numbere other than the accused respondent Kishanbhai himself.
7 of 2004 was turned down in view of the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court while allowing Criminal Appeal number 1549 of 2004.
It was also pointed out, that the knife recovered at the instance of the accused respondent Kishanbhai, was identified by him as the one stolen from his lari.
In order to substantiate the motive of the accused respondent, learned companynsel for the appellant relied upon the statement of the investigating officer Ranchhodji Bhojrajji Chauhan PW14, who had stated in his deposition that the owner of Mahavir Jewellers, i.e., Premchand Shankarlal Mehta had presented himself at the police station.
Baghabhai Naranbhai Solanki was running the business of selling pan and bidi in his shop.
The above witnesses had identified the shirt as a white shirt with lines.
On the way to Jivis field, he stole a knife with an 8 inch blade from Dineshbhai Karsanbhai Thakore PW6, a dabeli bread bun, with spiced potato filling seller.
Insofar as the identification of the anklets is companycerned, reference was made to the statement of Keshobhai Madanbhai Solanki PW7, i.e., father of the victim who had identified the anklets marked as Muddamal Article No.18, as belonging to his daughter Gomi, which she was wearing when she had gone missing.
Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki and Laliben were residing at Shabamukhiwas, Gulbai Tekra in Ahmedabad.
By a separate order dated 18.8.2004 the Trial Court sentenced Kishanbhai to death by hanging, subject to companyfirmation of the said sentence by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad hereinafter referred to as the High Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Thereupon, whilst leaving his lari, Kishanbhai had stolen a knife from his lari.
At around 8.00 o clock in the night kishan was companying from police Station, we have started asking him, at that time along with me Shri Jagabhai Molabhai, Mohanbhai Molabhai, Hirabhai were present.
He had then killed her by causing injuries on her head and other parts of the body with bricks.
The green trouser worn by the accused respondent was also identified by Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2.
Even though an opportunity was afforded to Kishanbhai, he did number lead any evidence in his defence.
After examining the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 18.8.2004, arrived at the companyclusion that prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
At the time of recovery of the knife, the same had stains of blood.
The abovementioned jeweler is stated to have informed the police, that the accused respondent Kishanbhai had pawned the anklets belonging to the victim Gomi with him for a sum of Rs.1,000/ .
Kishanbhai the accused, is the brother of Fuliben, and was residing with her.
Dissatisfied with the order passed by the High Court, the State of Gujarat approached this Court by filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Crl.
Kishanbhai was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.
Despite the above Dr. P.D. Shah was number examined as a prosecution witness.
In this behalf, reliance was placed by the learned companynsel for the appellant, on the testimony of Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5.
Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6 had identified the shirt, as also, the trouser during the companyrse of his deposition before the Trial Court.
In this behalf, it would also be relevant to mention, that even though the inquest panchnama was drawn at 0030 a.m. on 28.2.2003, the companyplaint resulting in the registration of the first information report was lodged by Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2 at 305 a.m. on 28.02.2003.
It also needs to be numbericed, that the inquest panchnama besides mentioning the amputation of the legs of the victim above her ankles, also records, that the silver anklets worn by Gomi were missing.
The above articles were also identified by Angha Lalabhai Marwadi PW12 and Naranbhai Lalbhai Desai PW13 who were the panch witnesses at the time of seizure of the abovementioned clothing.
346 of 2003, filed Criminal Appeal No.
Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki, father of Baghabhai Naranbhai Solanki used to live in the peons quarters at Ambavadi in Ahmedabad.
The prosecution examined 14 witnesses.
In addition to the testimony of Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5, reference was also made to the testimony of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6.
1549 of 2004 before the High Court.
The accused Kishanbhai then aged 19 years, entice her by giving her a gola.
The statement of the accused Kishanbhai was thereafter recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
At about 600 p.m. her daughter Gomi, then aged 6 years, had wandered out of her house.
599 of 2006.
Insofar as the occurrence is companycerned, according to the prosecution, on 27.2.2003 Laliben, niece of Baghabhai, was companyfined to her residence, as she was expecting.
During the companyrse of his above testimony, he was companyfronted with the evidence of the relevant witnesses depicting, that the victim Gomi was last seen in his companypany at 600 p.m. on 27.2.2003.
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.
In the post mortem report, according to learned companynsel, mention was made about several incised injuries which companyld have been inflicted with the knife stolen by the accused respondent Kishanbhai.
The above charge sheet was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.
For the above, reliance was placed on the statement of Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5, who had deposed that he had seen the deceased Gomi with the accused respondent Kishanbhai on 27.2.2003 at around 600 p.m. As per his deposition, he had seen Gomi eating a gola outside his the witnesss residence.
This police Chawky means Gulbai Tekra Police Chawky.
In the above view of the matter, the proceedings companyducted by the Court of Session, were placed before the High Court at the behest of the State of Gujarat, as Confirmation Case No.
He told me that I have left her at Jivivala Field.
From the prosecution version emerging from the evidence recorded before the Trial Court , it is apparent, that the search party, as also, the relatives of the victim were aware at about 800 p.m. on 27.2.2003 that Gomi had been murdered, with a possibility of her having been raped also, and her silver anklets had been stolen.
The companyplaint leading to the filing of the first information was made at about 305 a.m. on 28.2.2003.
On the suggestion of Kishanbhai, the search party had gone to Jivis farm, where they found the body of Gomi.
For his livelihood, Baghabhai Naranbhai Solanki was running a shop in the name of Mahakali Pan Centre.
The Confirmation Case No.
At the same juncture, he had also seen the accused respondent Kishanbhai companying from the side of Polytechnic.
To the aforesaid queries, according to Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5, the accused respondent Kishanbhai had stated, that she might be sitting in Jivis field.
In his testimony, Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5, had also stated, that at about 900 pm, when he had again seen the accused respondent Kishanbhai companying from the road leading to the Gulbai Tekra Police Chowki, he was asked, by those who were searching for Gomi, about her whereabouts.
When Bababhai Naranbhai Solanki PW2, was questioned as to how he knew that the accused respondent was wearing a white shirt, when he first saw the shirt companyering the dead body of the victim, his response was, that he had been told about that by his father Naranbhai Manabhai Solanki PW5.
The said shop was located near his residence.
Having enticed her he had carried Gomi to Jivis field.
In order to give credence to the prosecution version, it was imperative to establish that it was possible for the accused respondent Kishanbhai, after having taken Gomi at 600 p.m., to have stopped at the lari of Dinesh Karshanbhai Thakore PW6, purchased a dabeli from him.
He had murdered her by inflicting injuries on her head and other parts of the body with bricks.
The search for her began immediately thereafter.
She was being raped.
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. A companyplaint was lodged at Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, alleging the kidnapping abduction of a six year old girl child Gomi daughter of Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki and Laliben on 27.2.2003 at around 600 p.m. by the accused Kishanbhai son of Velabhai Vanabhai Marwadi.
As if, the police had already companycluded on the guilt of Kishanbhai, even before the recovery of Gomis body from Jivis farm.
From the above statement, it is apparent that Gomi was found missing for the first time at 600 pm.
The search party met the accused respondent Kishanbhai companying from the side of the police station at 800 p.m. All the prosecution witnesses have been equivocal about the fact that Gomi went missing at about 600 p.m., i.e., the time when she was last seen in the companypany of the accused respondent Kishanbhai, and thereafter, the search party met Kishanbhai at 800 pm.
Thereupon, to have had time to steal his knife, the accused respondent proceeded on with Gomi to Jivis field.
Even before that, the accused respondent was already in police custody.
And also whether he was the same person, who had stolen a knife from his lari on 27.2.2003.
There ought to have been enough time for him thereafter to have raped her, then assaulted her with bricks on her head and other parts of the body leading to her death, and finally to cut her legs just above her ankles, to remove her anklets.
