Ravi Pavankumar Pande vs State Of Gujarat

B.N. Karia, J

The appellant â€" original accused no. 5 in IÂC.R No. 193 of 2018 registered with Shaher Kotda Police Station, Ahmedabad has challenged the

judgment and order dated 6th November, 2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Special Court No.20, City Civil & Session Courts,

Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7007 of 2019 [hereinafter to be referred to as, “the impugned judgmentâ€​].

Heard learned advocate for the appellant.

Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant is an innocent person who is falsely implicated in the commission of an alleged

incident. That, the appellant has not committed any offence; as alleged in the FIR. That, from the perusal of the FIR, it is evident that neither the

appellant is named in the FIR nor any description of the appellant is mentioned in the FIR. That, according to the complainant, the incident which

occurred on 10.11.2018 was narrated to him by the friend of the deceased, namely, Piyush @ Pintu Rameshbhai Makwana, on the basis thereof, an

FIR came to be lodged. That, the statement of Piyush @ Pintu came to be recorded after a period of five days on 16.11.2018 from the date of alleged

incident, wherein, he named all the accused persons, and whereas, in the FIR registered on the basis of information given by him to the complainant,

no persons were named therein. This gives rise to a serious doubt regarding the origin and genesis of the case of the prosecution. That, from the

papers of investigation, for the first time, name of the appellant and other accused persons came to be revealed from the statement of Piyush @ Pintu

recorded on 16.11.2018, whereas, the appellant came to be arrested on 14.11.2018. This also raises serious doubt regarding the original and

genuineness of the prosecution case. According to the learned advocate for the appellant, it is prima facie evident that the appellant has been falsely

roped in the offence alleged, as he came to be arrested even prior to his name having been disclosed during the course of investigation. That, the

entire material collected during the course of investigation appears to be subsequent to their arrest; including statement of other eye witness. That,

similarly situated coÂaccused persons are ordered to be released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 22.7.2019 and 28.9.2019. That, from the

statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, it is evident that the appellant did not cause any injury on the vital part of the body

of the deceased and therefore also, it is prima facie evident that the intention of the appellant was not to commit murder of the deceased. That, the

appellant did not have any motive at all to commit murder of the deceased. That, investigation into the alleged offence is over and charge sheet has

been led filed, and therefore, there is no possibility of tampering with evidence or witnesses of the prosecution. That, the appellant is working as a

Driver and earning the livelihood for his family. Therefore also, presence of the appellant is required to maintain his family for whom he is a sole

breadÂ​ winner.

From the investigation papers produced by the present appellant, this Court did not incline to favour the present appellant by releasing him on bail, as

prima facie involvement in a serious offence was found by this Court. However, this appeal was fixed at the stage of admission, no notice was issued

to the respondents and this Court deems it fit to dispose of this appeal at this stage.

Having heard learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav A Vyas appearing for the appellant, it is apparent from the record that the appellant is the main

accused in an offence registered as C.R No. IÂ192 of 2018 with Shaher Kotda Police Station of Ahmedabad city for an offence punishable under

Sections 302, 294 [b], 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 [1] of the Gujarat Police Act read with Sections 3 [2] (5); 3 [2] (5) (a) of the

Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989.

From the complaint lodged on 11th November, 2018, it appears that some unknown persons assaulted injured Bipin. Complainant found his brother

Bipin in unconscious condition on the road near Arvind Mill. As per contents of FIR, on right side of hip as well as left side of hip, 5 to 6 blows of

sharp cutting instrument were given. Friend of the injured namely Piyush alias Pintu Rameshbhai Makwana was also standing at the place of offence.

He was inquired by complainant and as per information given by him, he himself and injured Bipin were talking on road nearby his house. At that time,

IÂ20 four wheeler vehicle came at the place of offence and two persons were came out from the vehicle. Thereafter, these two persons had called

another friends. Complainant and injured Bipin were assaulted by these persons came out from four wheeler vehicle and out of them, two persons

were with sharp cutting weapons. The complainant was able to escape from the persons from the place of offence and thereafter, he shouted in chali

and injured also shouted. Hearing of shouting of the injured Bipin, complainant returned back and he found that injured Bipin was lying nearby the gate

of Arvind Mill in bloodstain condition and therefore he contacted ambulence servicesÂ​108.

It appears from the record that statement of witness Piyush alias Pintu Rameshbhai Makwana was recorded on 16th November, 2018 i.e. after five

days of lodging the complaint wherein, he has given name of the present appellant as well as other coÂaccused. In the said statement, he has clearly

stated that present appellant blowed with chappa to injured Bipin and 4 to 5 blow were given, and therefore, he fell down on the ground in bloodstain

condition. Thereafter, injured was taken to Shardaben Hospital. As per his statement, he is eye witness of incident and was present and had seen

incident. The appellant has also produced statement of Welesh Joshefbhai Christian recorded on 16th November, 2018. This witness also supported

the statement of previous prosecution witness namely Piyush alias Pintu Rameshbhai Makwana saying that he was also present at the time of

committing an offence by the present appellant and coÂaccused. As per chargeÂsheet the present appellant had blowed with chappa and caused

grievous injuries to deceased Bipin.

Considering the role played by present appellant in the offence, he cannot be given any benefit of parity as no allegations were made by the

complainant to cause any injuries by other coÂaccused who are released on bail by this Court Hence, considering the investigating papers produced

on record, prima facie involvement of the present appellant was established and therefore, prayer made by the present appellant cannot be granted

and hence this appeal is ordered to be dismissed.