VINOD JASWANTRAY VYAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed by the original accused challenging the judgment of conviction dated 4.3.1997 rendered by the learned Additional City and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.378/1993.

(2.) Briefly stated, prosecution version was that one Jeeva Vaiyapuri Kvandar had appeared before the Amraiwadi police station late at night on 10.6.1992 where he was one of the accused in the FIR registered before the said police station alleging offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.1 Vinod Jaswantray Vyas was the police inspector at Amraiwadi police station at that time. Accused no.2 Chinubhai Govindbhai Patel was the Superintendent of Police. Jeeva Vaiyapuri had come along with his advocate Shri Patanwadia, his two sisters and coaccused Anna Dorai to the police station. Shri Patanwadia left after production of the said accused. The two sisters however, lingered on. According to the prosecution, the two police officers beat up Jeeva with fists and sticks causing serious multiple injuries. He was then dragged and locked up in the lock-up room of the police station. Next day evening, he was produced before the Magistrate and then sent to Sabarmati Central jail where his condition deteriorated. He was rushed to the hospital but the doctor declared him dead. Charge was therefore, framed against both the accused at exh.2 alleging that they had committed offence punishable under section 302 read with section 114 of the IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for offence under section 302 read with section 114 of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. Fines were also imposed.

(3.) Accused no.1 filed Criminal Appeal No.210/1997, accused no.2 filed Criminal Appeal No.226/1997 to challenge the said judgment. During the pendency of the appeals, original accused no.2 died. However, being a Government servant, the question of his conviction had a direct bearing on his deathcumretiral benefits. His heirs applied and were granted permission to prosecute the appeal. That is how, we have heard both the appeals of the accused. Considering the issues involved and the case being one of custodial death, we had requested learned advocate Shri Pratik Barot to assist as an amicus curiae, which responsibility, he willingly accepted and efficiently performed.