This group of appeals arise out of a judgment and order rendered by Sessions Court, Nadiad in Sessions Case No.50 of 1997 on 18/03/2006 convicting the appellants under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Since these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Yogeshbhai @ Y K Patel of Anand was alleged to have been abducted on 06/10/1996 from Anand in his own Car. FIR came to be lodged in this regard by his brother – Rajnikant Patel on 07/10/1996 with Anand Town Police Station. On basis of which, an FIR was recorded and investigation was started.
3. Before the Anand Police could probe further into the issue, parallel to this, a car which was subsequently identified as the car owned by Yogeshbhai, was found stationary on a road leading from Kana Talav to Sanvarkundla at a distance of about half a kilometer from Kana Talav. This was noticed by the then Police Constable – Harshadbhai Nazabhai Barot (PW No.20 Exh.235) and Police Constable – Merubhai Nanabhai (PW No.41 Exh.307), while they claimed to be returning from Kana Talav to Sanvarkundla, after performing official duty in respect of another departmental proceeding. They found a car to be lying in a suspicious condition and, therefore, they went to the car and inquired from the occupant. Therefore, the person sitting in the navigator's (left front seat) got down of the car and informed that they were going to Ramvalani Vavdi. He was told that this road does not lead to Ramavalani Vavdi. The person who had came out of the vehicle identified himself as Gadhvi. However, since he was not known to the witness, went behind the car and noted down the number. In the meantime, the said person fled away towards north. The witness tried to chase him for sometime, but in vain.
3.1 In the meantime, as per the case of prosecution, the driver of the car took off the car and tried to escape towards Hathsani. Therefore, the said two witnesses chased the said motorcar on motorcycle. They noticed that a person sitting in the rear seat of the car had tried to call them closure and had also tried to move out of the car, but the other person pulled him into the car. While approaching Hathsani, there is a narrow bridge. While the motorcar reached there, a bullock cart was coming from opposite direction and, therefore, the car was required to be stopped. At that point of time, a person got out from the rear left door of the car and escaped towards the village. The second person sitting in the car got out from the right rear door of the car, as he lost balance and fell to the ground with his face up. In the meantime, the driver of the car came out of the vehicle. He had a holster hanging on his shoulder from which he pulled out a gun and fired at the person who had fallen down on the ground and then the driver of the vehicle ran away. The person who had got out of the rear left seat was apprehended and brought to the spot by Merubhai. That person was later identified to be A-4 - Rajusha Dhanjisha Teli. The person, on whom the gun was fired by the driver of the car, was later identified to be Yogesh who was allegedly abducted from Anand and the person, who fired the gun i.e. driver of the car, was later identified to be A-7- Paresh @ Pappu Ranglal Chauhan.
3.2 The Police investigated into the matter deeply and developed a theory that Yogesh was kidnapped upon a conspiracy hatched by A-1 – Babubhai Vanmalidas Mistry and A-2 – Mineshbhai Mohanbhai Mistry, who in turn, handed over the job to A-3- Ishwardan Pratapdan Gadhvi, A-4 – Rajusha Dhanjisha Teli, A-5-Hareshbhai Devabhai Bharvad, A-6-Sumitbhai Pitambarsing Bist and A-7- Paresh @ Pappu Ranglal Chauhan. The Police, therefore, filed charge-sheet against all of them in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand. Some of the suspects / accused persons, who were absconding, came to be arrested and, therefore, the Police filed charge-sheet on a piecemeal basis and Sessions Case No.50 of 1997, 205 of 1997 and 258 of 1997 came to be registered. The cases were clubbed together and tried together and were disposed of by common judgment. The charge was framed against A-1 to A-7 at Exh.34 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 364(A), 384, 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 (1b) (a) of the Arms Act. All the seven accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. During the trial, A-4 absconded and A-3 escaped after conviction was recorded by the trial Court and before pronouncement of sentence.
3.3 The trial Court found that charges levelled against A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-7 were proved by the prosecution. Since A-4 absconded, the trial Court after hearing the accused on sentence passed appropriate sentence.
3.4 A-1, A-2 and A-7 came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364 (A) and 364(A) r/w Section 34 and 120(B) of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one year SI. A- 1, A-2 and A-7 came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 384 and Section 384 r/w Section 34 and 120 (B) of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo two years SI with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months SI. A-7 came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one year SI. A-7 also came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1) (b) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo three years RI with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo six months SI.
4. It is against this conviction that these appeals are preferred. A-1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.940 of 2006, A-2 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.676 of 2006 and A-7 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1840 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, the appellants are referred to by their original status and number of accused in this judgment.
5. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for the appellants. Their main contention is that the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants on basis of a self-conflicting, inconsistent and unreliable evidence of eye-witnesses. The eye-witnesses depose inconsistently, so far as occurrence of alleged murder is concerned. They are falsified by the prosecution story emerging from contemporaneous material. They have deposed inconsistently with each other and, therefore, the involvement of A-7 in the incident of alleged murder is doubtful.
5.1 Learned Advocate submitted further that when the involvement of accused persons in the alleged murder becomes doubtful, the theory of prosecution of the accused having been hatched a conspiracy and having acted in furtherance of the conspiracy falls to the ground. It was submitted that the theory of conspiracy is only a theory not supported by any evidence. There is no nexus established between the deceased and A-1 and A-2, who are before this Court and were convicted mainly conspiring to cause death of the deceased.
6. It was submitted that evidence of discovery of weapon by A-7 indicates that the said weapon being seized by Police and sent to FSL is not reconcilable, because there is a variance in the size of the weapon seized and the size of the weapon examined by the ballistic experts. The ballistic expert's report is incomplete insofar as it does not disclose the finding on similarities or dissimilarities found between the bullet seized from the dead body and the bullet that may have been fired from the weapon, although there is no infallible evidence that both the weapons were same. It was, therefore, submitted that on this unreliable and scanty evidence, this Court may accept the appeal, set aside the conviction and set the accused at liberty.
7. On the other hand, learned APP, has opposed these appeals. According to him, there is evidence to connect A-1 and A-2 in conspiracy. In this context, attention of this Court has been drawn towards evidence of PW Nos.1, 2 and 3, in particular. Similarly, learned APP submitted that the FSL report indicates that the size of the bore used in commission of crime is the same size as of the hole found in the shirt which the deceased was wearing at the time of incident.
7.1 So far as the evidence of actual occurrence of alleged murder is concerned, learned APP has relied on the evidence of PW No.41-Merubhai, PW No.20- Harshadbhai, PW No.21-Nagjibhai, PW No.27-Bhupatsing as well as PW No.44-Vijaysinh. According to him, the trial Court has rendered a well considered judgment and this Court may not exercise it's appellate jurisdiction to interfere with the same.
8. We have examined the record and proceedings in context of rival submissions.
9. Having gone through the voluminous record, at the outset, we may record that out of seven accused arraigned before the trial Court, A-4 absconded and only six persons were tried by the trial Court. Out of the six who were tried, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-7 came to be convicted for various offences. A-5 and A-6 came to be acquitted. Out of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-7 convicted by the trial Court, A-3 is not before us; whereas, A-1, A-2 and A-7 are the appellants before this Court.
10. The prosecution case is divided in two episodes. First having occurred on 06/10/1996 at Anand, when victim – Yogesh came to be abducted allegedly for a ransom of Rs.30 Lac, and the second episode occurs on 07/10/1996 near Kana Talav and Hathisan where the vehicle is spotted and the deceased - Yogesh met with his fate.
11. We propose to discuss the second episode first, because according to the prosecution, the second episode has its roots in the first episode and, if the second episode is not established, the involvement of the appellants in the first episode would also become a matter of doubt.
12. The second episode starts when witness – Harshad (Exh.235) and witness Meru (Exh.307) noticed maroon coloured 118 Maruti NE car parked on side of a road near Village Kana Talav, while they were returning from Kana Talav and were going to Sanvarkundla. While discussing evidence of these witnesses, we may record here that we have found inconsistency in their evidence, which we would discuss hereinafter. These two witnesses are Police Constables on duty in respect of service of summons in departmental proceedings.
13. According to PW No.20-Harshad, when they were returning from Kana Talav to Sanvarkundla, they noticed this vehicle and, therefore, they made inquiries from the occupants. At that point of time, person from the navigator's seat came out of the vehicle and told them that they were going to Ramavalani Vavdi. In response to which, he replied that this road does not lead to Ramavalani Vavdi. The man introduced himself as Gadhvi and the witness said that he did not know him and noted down the number of the car. In the meantime, said Gadhvi escaped towards north. Gadhvi was later arraigned as A-3. According to Harshad, they tried to chase Gadhvi for some distance, but they could not catch him. In the meantime, the car escaped towards Hathsani. They, therefore, chased the car on their motorcycle. They saw that a person sitting in the rear seat had rolled down the glass and had made signs to them to come nearer. He also tried to come out of the vehicle, but the second person, sitting in the rear seat on the left side, pulled him in. According to this witness, while approaching Hathsani, there is a narrow bridge and bullock cart was coming from opposite direction and, therefore, the fiat car was required to be stopped. When the vehicle stopped, a person emerged from the rear left door of the car and ran away towards town. Another person came out from the rear right door of the car, somehow lost balance and fell to the ground with his face towards sky. In the meantime, driver of the car came out of the vehicle with a holster like cover hanging on his shoulder from which he pulled out a fire arm and fired at the person, who had fallen to the ground and thereafter he also ran away towards Dam Colony. The person on whom the gun was fired was later identified to be Yogesh Kholabhai Patel, the victim, who was missing on abduction as well. As per this witness, witness – Merubhai chased a person who escaped towards town after emerging from the rear left seat. He was speaking in Hindi language saying that he was hurt by knife and he should be taken to Hospital. In the meantime, villagers had arrived. The person who escaped towards Dam Colony, i.e. driver, is described by this witness as short, neither short nor slim and was wearing pant and t-shirt. This witness says that he was called by Anand Town Police for T.I parade on 26/08/1997. According to him, at the T.I parade, he was asked to identify A-7, but he did identify A-7. According to this witness, he did identify A-7. During his cross-examination, he states that no entry or written record is there to show that he was required to go to serve summons in an inquiry proceeding upon a PSI at Village Kana Talav. He also states that on many occasions, he is taken to Court at Anand. He denies the suggestion that in the accident, some Maruti car had overturned or turtled and somebody had died and another injured in that accident. He admits the situation that he had seen A-7 when he was produced earlier and before his deposition he had identified him.
14. The second eye-witness to the incident is Meru (PW No.41 Exh.307). He also says that he and Head Constable – Harshad had gone to Kana Talav for service of summons in an inquiry proceedings. While they were coming back, they noticed a maroon coloured Maruti NE Car. The glasses were rolled up and, therefore, finding it suspicious, they went to the car and inquired. He says that before doing so, they had inquired from the owner of the car which was parked. When they inquired from the occupants of the car, person from navigator's came out and when he was asked as to why they were waiting there, he said that the vehicle has heat and, therefore, they were waiting. He says that they were going to Ramvalani Vavdi. In the meantime, somebody sitting in the rear seat of the car signed at them to go nearer to him. The witness, therefore, informed Harshadbhai that the said person is calling. In the meantime, the person who had come out of the car ran away and the driver also started out the car towards Hathsani. The person, who had got out of the car, had informed that he was Gadhvi. This witness states that they had chased the car on the two wheeler of Harshadbhai. Just before Hathsani, there is a narrow bridge. Bullock cart was coming from opposite direction and car, therefore, was slowed down. A person from the rear left seat came out of the car and escaped towards village. The person sitting in the rear seat came out of the right door. This witness says that he had chased the person who had run towards town and caught hold of him. In the meantime, he heard sound of a gunfire. The person who had got down from the car had fallen to the ground. According to this witness, the person whom he had caught hold of, told him that he has been assaulted with a knife and he should be taken to Hospital. He says that the person who was driving the car had fired the gun at the person who had got down of the car from the rear seat. He noticed the driver of the car running away. He, therefore, telephoned Sanvarkundla Police Station and called for a jeep. When the jeep came, PSI and other police personnel also came and took the injured person whom they had got admitted to the hospital. The witness states that he would be able to identify the person, who had suffered knife injury and he says that he was not present in the Court on the relevant date and the A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-7 were present before the Court. The witness says that the person, who was apprehended, has identified himself as Raju Teli of Jamshedpur. This witness says that he was called for T.I parade on 26/08/1997 in the Mamlatdar Office and at that time, witness – Harshbhai Barot was also present. They were kept in separate rooms. Firstly, Harshad was called, followed by this witness and he has identified the person who was driving the said car to be Paresh. He denies the suggestion that somebody informed them that a car has overturned near Village Hathsani. He denies that somebody had told him that a person has died in the said incident.
15. Witness – Bhupatsing Gababhai (Exh.252) was a Senior PSI around the time of incident working at Sanvarkundla. He received a telephonic call from PSI that Head Constable, Harshadbhai had informed telephonically at the Police Station that a car has overturned near Village Hathsani and one person has died; whereas, he is not sure about any other person. The witness, therefore, went to the Police Station. In the meantime, Manubhai of village Hathsani came to Police Station and informed that there had been an incident of fire on Hathsani road. He also informed that whatever was informed by Manu was written down by him, of which occurrence entry No.15/96 was made. Thereafter, he went to spot in Government jeep and found a dead body of a male. The car was lying at the culvert in a turtled condition. The witness says that then he went to the Hospital, where the injured person was admitted and that was A-4-Raju Teli. He had injury on his abdomen. Exh.254 is the complaint given by him. Raju Teli also gave a complaint about the incident which was registered. Witness is shown a photograph which he identifies to be of A-4. Said photograph is produced at Exh.256.
16. Witness – Manubhai is examined as PW No.22 at Exh.240. According to him, he runs a Pan Shop in Village Hathsani. He goes to Sanvarkundla for making purchases for the business. On 07/10/1996, he was sitting on his Galla, when he heard about a murder having been committed in the outskirts of the village. He found that one of the person was dead and other was injured. Thereafter, he had informed to Sanvarkundla Police Station in this regard, where he has stated that he had seen a red coloured premier car lying in turtled condition. A person aged about 40 to 42 years was lying dead on the road with injury on right eye. It is also stated in the said report entry that besides dead body, one injured person is also lying there. During cross-examination, he states that after he informed Sanvarkundla Police, the Police went to the spot.
17. There is one more witness Nagjibhai Samjibhai (Exh.239). He is resident of Village Hathsani. He says that he heard sound of a gunfire at 10:00 O'clock in the morning, while he was at his field. He saw a car standing. One person was injured, who was being taken to Hospital by Manubhai. According to this witness, he has not seen anything.
18. Investigating Officer – Vijaysinh Jadeja is examined at Exh.340 as PW No.44. He deposes about discovery of weapon by A-7 and about other steps taken by him during course of investigation.
19. The discovery Panchnama is at Exh.283. The said Panchnama is drawn in presence of witnesses – Manubhai Gumal and Maganbhai Dudhat. Maganbhai is examined at Exh.282. He does not support the prosecution case and is treated as a witness hostile to the prosecution. Similarly, first Panch Manubhai is examined as PW No.22 at Exh.240 and he also does not support the discovery part.
20. The ballistic expert's report is at Exh.334, which says that the bullet which was recovered from the dead body was “303 copper jacketed bullet” which was fired from a smooth bore weapon. When this was sent to the FSL, the weapon was not discovered. Later when the weapon was discovered, the same was sent to FSL and the FSL Report is at Exh.344. The ballistic expert's have examined the weapon and found an empty cartridges from the chamber of the weapon. The said gun was test fired and an opinion has been sent that the cartridges was found from the chamber and the test cartridges were fired by the said weapon. The report also stated that bullet comparison work will be carried out after recovering bullet parcels '8' of case No.FSL/EE/96/BL/306. But, such report of comparing the bullet recovery from the dead body and the test fired bullet is not on record.
21. The report describes the weapon to be a country made hand gun having barrel length about 16.40 cm. If this is compared with the Panchnama of discovery of weapon Exh.283, it records the length of the barrel of the Tamancha to be 29.2 CM. It becomes therefore, a matter of doubt whether the weapon which was allegedly discovered by A-7 was the weapon which was sent to the FSL for inspection and report.
22. To conclude whether the prosecution has really proved the case against A-7 of having committed murder of deceased – Yogesh, the above stated evidence will have to be examined in context of each other so as to form an opinion by weaving these facts with each other.
23. The prosecution case is that all the accused were acting pursuant to the conspiracy hatched by A-1 and A-2. The eye-witnesses are three in number. One is Harshad, second is Meru and third is Manu. Harshad and Meru are Police personnel, who claimed to be present at the place of incident. Ordinarily, they had no business to be there, but they said they had gone to Kana Talav to serve summons in respect of an inquiry proceeding. The evidence would indicate that there is no contemporaneous record produced by the prosecution to show that they had, in fact, gone to Kana Talav for the purpose or even to show that they were entrusted with that work. This aspect becomes important because if that is not proved, they become chance witness and their presence at the spot would become doubtful.
23.1 The doubt about presence of Harshad and Meru arises from evidence of Manu. Manu is resident of Hathsani. He goes to the spot and notices the vehicle lying in a turtled position, a dead body was lying over there and another injured person was lying over there. Then, he goes to Police Station and gives information. This witness does not speak of presence of either Harshad or Meru. If they were there, they would have been noticed by Manu. Because, firstly they were Police personnel and secondly they were strangers to the place. Therefore, according to Manu, the car was lying in a turtled condition, one dead body was lying and one person was lying with injury on abdomen.
23.2 Now, if we examine the evidence of Harshad, he says that while he was chasing a car and the car was about to reach Hathsani, there was a narrow bridge and because a bullock cart was coming from opposite direction, the car had to stop and then one person came out of the car from the rear left door and escaped. Harshad does not speak of the car having turtled or overturned or of such situation arising out of either loss of control by the driver or by virtue of any accident. Manu's version about the car having got turtled is supported by Panchnama of place of incident.
23.3 Similar to Harshad, Meru also does not speak anything about the car having got turtled. He does not even speak of the car having stopped. He says the car slowed down because of on coming bullock cart and at that point of time, A-4 jumped out of the rear left door, but never about the car getting turtled.
23.4 Similarly, Harshad says that Yogesh came out through rear right door of the car and somehow lost balance and fell down and thereafter A-7 – driver of the car fired a shot at him. Contrarily, Meru does not speak of Yogesh falling down to the ground on account of loosing balance. Thus, the version of Harshad and Meru is inconsistent with each other and their version is inconsistent with the version of Manu.
23.5 Harshad says that they went to Sanvarkundla and informed PSO from STD Booth. The information that was received by PSO, as reflected from evidence of Bhupatsing would indicate that Harshad telephonically informed that a car has overturned at Hathsani and one man has suffered injury. What emerges, therefore, is that Harshad does not depose about the car getting overturned and his first version about the incident telephonically conveyed to the PSO does not speak anything about any murder taking place at the place of incident. If evidence of Nagji (Exh.249) is seen, he is again a witness who reaches the spot after hearing the firing sound. He says that he saw a car standing, one person having suffered injury and Manubhai taking that injured person to Hospital. This witness does not say anything beyond this. This would mean that Manubhai took A-4 to Hospital about which Manubhai is silent. Manubhai does not claim to have taken A-4 to Hospital. On the contrary, as per the prosecution case, A-4 was taken by Kalubhai to Hospital.
24. Incidentally, the prosecution story about Kalubhai going to the place does not inspire confidence. According to Bhupatsinh, when he received the information, he said that since the police jeep was out of order, he asked Kalubhai to go to the place and shift the injured to Hospital. In this context, if evidence of Meru is seen, he says that the injured person, A-4, was taken to Hospital in a jeep car by Police. Now, whether Bhupatsinh's version is correct or Meru is giving correct version about non- availability of jeep car and injured being taken to Hospital is left to our imagination.
25. The above discussion would go to show that the evidence of Harshad, Meru and Manu, who claimed to be eye-witnesses is inconsistent with each other and the inconsistency found in their evidence go to the root of the incident. They directly affect the veracity of their evidence and it becomes doubtful as to whether they were really eye-witnesses to the incident, and if, this is so, it is a matter of doubt, whether the investigation in this regard was carried out honestly or efficiently. We are supported in this aspect by the fact that there is a variance in the size of the weapon, which is claimed to have been discovered by A-7 and the weapon which was received and examined by FSL. The variance is substantial. According to the Panchnama, the size of the barrel of the gun is 29 CM and odd. Whereas, according to the FSL Report, as stated earlier, the gun which was received and examined by FSL, had a barrel of about 16 CM and odd. This difference is not explained by the prosecution, is not reconcilable and, therefore, we are left to guess as to how the Police came into possession of an unlicensed weapon which was sent to FSL for examination when it is not seized by Police in the offence and, therefore, entire investigation reels under a cloud of doubt.
26. At this stage, we may also state that there is no evidence worth the name that the weapon which was allegedly discovered by A-7 was the weapon with which bullet was fired at the deceased. There is no comparison report of the bullet recovered from the dead body and it is fired from the weapon examined by the FSL. Even if it is so, in view of the fact that the identity of weapon itself is a matter of doubt, that would not have helped the prosecution because what was seized was a 29 cm barrel gun, whereas what was examined by the FSL was a 16 CM gun. What is expected of the prosecution is to prove that A-7 caused death of Yogesh by using the muddamal gun. Here, which weapon caused death of Yogesh, is not proved, the weapon which was allegedly discovered by A-7 is not brought before the Court and what is being brought before the Court is a weapon, the source of which is not known.
26.1 We are conscious that discovery of weapon is not always necessary, but then there has to be some other infallible and unshakeable evidence to connect the accused with the crime. What we have here is evidence of Harshad, Meru and Manu. None of whom can be said to be trustworthy or reliable or witnesses of truth. Their respective versions are destroyed by their mutual evidence and contemporaneous record. In our view, therefore, the entire episode which is alleged to have occurred on 07/10/1996 near Kana Talav and Hathsani cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
27. Apart from above aspect, one more thing that requires to be considered is that according to both Harshad and Meru, when the car reached near Hathsani bridge, because of on coming bullock cart, the vehicle was either slowed down or stopped and A-4 jumped out of the vehicle from the rear left door and escaped towards town. Here, Meru claims that he chased him and apprehended him. At that time, A-4 was shouting that he had been hurt with knife and he should be taken to Hospital for treatment.
28. In this context, if the evidence is seen, none of the eye-witnesses say anything about A-4 sustaining any injury with knife at the relevant time. The prosecution case is that within proximity of the place of incident, the knife was found. Meaning thereby, that the knife was used at the place in the episode that occurs near Hathsani.
29. Against the story being totally silent about how A-4 suffered injuries, there is medical evidence which says that A-4 was taken to Hospital by Police Constable – Kalubhai where it is recorded that he suffered assault injuries. None of the eye-witnesses speak anything about any assault having been made on A-4 by anybody. It is nobody's case that he suffered injury while he was in car. No blood is found from the car. Panchnama of place of incident would indicate that there was indication of scuffle about which all the three eye-witnesses remain silent. The result is that the prosecution is unable to bring on record the true genesis of the incident. The prosecution does not dispute A-4 having suffered injury, but is unable to explain how he suffered injury and also leaves aside where and when.
30. The prosecution had lead halfhearted story about injury on person of A-4. If he suffered injury after coming out of the car, then prosecution is unable to explain how he suffered injury, at whose hands and the prosecution is totally silent on this. The prosecution is silent on any scuffle taking place. On the other hand, if the injury is caused to A-4 by other occupant of the vehicle in the car, which also does not seem to be probable, because there is no marks of blood in the car which would rule out the theory of A-4 being part of conspiracy to the incident. Therefore, either the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident or it has no evidence as to genesis of the incident.
31. Now, coming to the question of A-1 and A-2 having hatched conspiracy, evidence of PW No.1, PW No.2 and PW No.3 are relevant. What emerges from their evidence is that deceased – Yogesh, A-1 and Veribhai were partners in a business and at a later point of time, A-1 who had 25% share in the business, was removed from partnership because of which, it is said that he nurtured a grievance against the deceased.
32. All that emerges from evidence of Veribhai is that A-1 had grievance against Yogesh because he was removed from partnership. That removal from partnership took place on 11/04/1995 about 18 months prior to the alleged incident and during this time span, no untoward incident is reported. Simply because A-1 had a grievance against Yogesh about removal from partnership, it cannot be inferred that he had conspired to do him away with Yogesh and get him murdered.
33. Now, about the episode of abduction, if the evidence is seen, the first informant is PW No.1 – Rajni, brother of deceased – Yogesh. From his evidence, it appears that on 06/10/1996, Yogesh did not reach home. Therefore, his wife – Indira called Rajni. Then, they tried to trace Yogesh. While they were doing so, they received a call from Yogesh at about 12:15 in the midnight, where Yogesh informed them that he was at Gandhinagar and had gone for some work and they need not wait for him, he would go to Anand on the next date. He also indicated that he is with some Pravinbhai. Who is that Pravinbhai is not brought on record. No investigation seems to have been made in the direction of the deceased having gone to Gandhinagar and stayed at Guest House at Gandhinagar.
33.1 It is further evidence of Rajnikant that he received a call from deceased – Yogesh asking him to keep Rs.30 Lacs ready in the next morning and not to take any action, as he has been kept on ransom. Yogesh
in between and talked to Rajni in Hindi threatening not to involve anybody and to keep money ready or else Yogesh would be dealt with mercilessly. Again, on 07/10/1996, he received a call at about 8:30 in the morning where somebody identified himself as Yakub and inquired whether the arrangement for money has been made or not. The said person indicated that he would give the address where the money is to be delivered, but thereafter he never called.
34. It appears from the prosecution evidence that no investigation is made in the direction as to who that Pravainbhai was, whether Yogesh had gone to Gandhinagar and stayed in Guest House or not, who this Yakub was, who talked to PW No.1 on telephone and the Investigating Agency was complaisant upon receiving information from Sanvarkundla Police about murder of Yogesh and tried to connect the accused persons.
35. All that we find is evidence of PW No.39- Manubhai Chhotabhai Patel (Exh.303), who is the Manager of Ganesh Guest House at Vidhyanagar. He claims that two persons had hired room No.9 from 30/09/1996. That room was hired by one Prakash Vyas. He stayed there upto 03/10/1996 and again came back and occupied the said room. On 06/10/1996 in the evening, they left the room and did not come back at all. He deposes that one of them was A-7. He also deposes that A-1 had come to meet those two passengers (guests). During his cross-examination, he admits that he had not stated before Police that two guests had visited. He also admits that he was not called for any TI Parade in respect of A-1, nor was he called for TI parade in respect of those two accused who occupied the room which includes A-7.
36. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 and A-2 hatched conspiracy to cause death of Yogesh with the help of A-7, which is sought to be proved by the prosecution with the help of evidence of PW No.40- Rameshbhai Durlabhjibhai Harsoda (Exh.304), who was instrumental in introducing these two persons for the work with knowledge. This Rameshbhai, in fact, ought to have arraigned as one of the accused being instrumental in hatching conspiracy. Instead, the prosecution has cited him as a witness, who turns hostile and thereby snaps the nexus between A-1, A-2 on one side and A-7 on the other.
37. The above evidence collected by the Investigating agency cannot advance the prosecution case any further to connect the accused – appellants with the offence.
38. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.676 of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.940 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No.1840 of 2006 are allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered in Sessions Case No.50 of 1997 on 18/03/2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nadiad is set aside. The appellants - org. accused Nos.1, 2 and 7 are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
39. Since the org. accused No.1-Babubhai Vanmalidas Mistry (Appellant of Criminal Appeal No.940 of 2006) and org. accused No.2 - Minesh Mohanbhai Mistry (Appellant of Criminal Appeal No.676 of 2006) are on bail, their bail bond shall stand cancelled. As the org. accused No.7-Paresh @ Pappu Ranglal Chauhan (Appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1840 of 2006) is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine, if paid by the appellants, is ordered to be refunded to them.
(A L DAVE, J.) (A J DESAI, J.) sompura