SANDEEPSINGH NARSINGH LALSINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State.

(2.) Mr. A. M. Dagli, learned advocate for the applicants, submitted that the original complainant had solved some family property related dispute of original accused No.1. The original complainant is engaged in the business of sales and purchase of fire-arms. As per the prosecution case, some scuffle had taken place between the original complainant and the accused persons; however, said alleged incident had not taken place inside the office premises of the original complainant. It is alleged that original accused No.1 had picked up a country made pistol and thereafter, fired it at the original complainant, in which incident, the original complainant allegedly sustained a gun-shot injury on his ears. It was submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in Bapunagar area of Ahmedabad City. If the original complainant had really sustained any such gun-shot injury on his ears, then would have immediately taken treatment to any nearby hospital situated in Bapunagar area and would never travel up to Shahibagh area, which is at a distance of about 4- 1/2 kilometres from Bapunagar, for taking treatment. It was submitted that the reason why the complainant had travelled up to the hospital situated at Shahibagh for treatment in an allegedly injured condition is that the hospital belonged to a close family friend of the complainant. By doing so, the complainant knew that he would be able to the complainant. By doing so, the complainant knew that he would be able to concoct a story against the accused persons in connivance with his Doctor friend. The prosecution has not produced any medical case papers regarding the treatment taken by the complainant at the said hospital. If the complainant had sustained any such injury in the alleged incident and had taken any treatment at any hospital, then the prosecution would not have hesitated to produce the relevant medical case papers of the complainant on record of the trial Court. However, the very fact that the complainant has not produced any medical case papers regarding the treatment, if any, taken by him at the hospital at Shahibagh establishes that the complainant had not sustained any injury in the alleged incident. The Doctor has deposed that while treating the complainant, he had removed some "foreign body" from the head of the complainant; however, no such "foreign body" was handed over to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the evidence of said Doctor ought not to have reliedconcoct a story against the accused persons in connivance with his Doctor friend. The prosecution has not produced any medical case papers regarding the treatment taken by the complainant at the said hospital. If the complainant had sustained any such injury in the alleged incident and had taken any treatment at any hospital, then the prosecution would not have hesitated to produce the relevant medical case papers of the complainant on record of the trial Court. However, the very fact that the complainant has not produced any medical case papers regarding the treatment, if any, taken by him at the hospital at Shahibagh establishes that the complainant had not sustained any injury in the alleged incident. The Doctor has deposed that while treating the complainant, he had removed some "foreign body" from the head of the complainant; however, no such "foreign body" was handed over to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the evidence of said Doctor ought not to have relied upon as he is a near friend of the complainant and therefore, an interested witness. The ballistic report does not disclose the use of any such arms.

(3.) Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has produced written objections to the application filed by the applicants seeking suspension of sentence. It was submitted that the accused persons carried the motive to commit the alleged crime since the applicant No.1 had animosity with the complainant. The said aspect is evident from the depositions of the complainant and of Yogendra Subedarsinh Chauhan (PW-7). It is established that there was a dispute with regard to the shop owned by applicant No.1 and the applicant No.1 believed that the raid conducted at the shop of owned by applicant No.1 and the applicant No.1 believed that the raid conducted at the shop of applicant No.1 was due to the complainant. Thus, the accused persons carried the motive to commit the alleged offence.