RAJESHBHAI @ RAJENDRASINH FATESINH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MS . Maithili Mehta learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the State.

(2.) THE applicants urge this Court to enlarge them on bail on various grounds.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has invited attention of this Court to the contents of the FIR, the testimony of the father and brother (Sanjay) of the victim and the call records of the mobile phone No. 9429468970 and 9824549595 respectively belonging to PW1 father of the victim and the victim to submit that the prosecution story about existence of grave circumstances immediately before death of the victim was belied by the fact that no calls were made from mobile no. 9824549595 on 30th June 2011 to mobile no. 9429468970 contradicting the claim of the complainant and witness Sanjaybhai. Learned counsel also pointed out that although from the mobile phone of the victim, calls on other mobile numbers were made on that day. It was also contended that, in fact, as probablised by the defence, P.W.1 had scuffle with the victim on 30th June 2011 by harbouring a suspicion with regard to her relation with one Dashrathbhai who is the husband of the victims younger sister. Learned counsel would also contend that a probablised story of the defence was accepted by prosecution during cross -examination of D.W.1 that the victim was threatened by her father. It was argued that, since the statement of the accused was inadmissible in evidence, it could not have been relied upon even for contradiction or corroboration in the cross -examination of accused no. 5. In this context, learned counsel pointed out two decisions of Honble Supreme Court in Mrs Shakila Khader Vs Nausher Gama, 1975 AIR(SC) 1324) and Raghunandan Vs. State of U.P., 1974 AIR(SC) 463