JIVRAMBHAI DUDHABHAI CHAUDHARYPATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DINESHCHANDRA Kantilal Pavala (Modi) lodged an FIR with Deesa police on 12. 8. 2004, stating that he was serving as Cashier with Gujarat Electricity Board at Deesa and while he was going to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- with Dena Bank, Deesa, being the collection of the previous day with the main office, at about 1. 45 p. m. , in company of Junior Clerk Shri Ishwarbhai Kalidas, two persons intercepted them near Lati Bazaar Chowk and tried to snatch away the suit-case containing the cash. One of the persons was wearing black pant-shirt and that his complexion was blackish, the second person was also wearing black pant; both of them were aged about thirty years. One of the persons, upon resistance, fired a shot at the first informant. However, the bullet did not hit him, but, the two persons were able to snatch away the suit-case with cash, and they rushed to a Maruti Van, bearing registration No. GJ-2r-1746, and escaped. He, therefore, went to the office and informed his superior, and on being instructed, he went to Deesa city police station and lodged the FIR. On the basis of the said information, offence was registered and investigation started. In the meantime, while the investigation was on, Sanchor police intercepted a Qualis SUV, bearing the same registration number. As stated in the FIR, there were eight persons seated in it. They all tried to escape. Somehow, out of them, five persons were apprehended, and out of them, one of them was found to be possessing a police service revolver. The recovery was made by Sanchor police. As per Sanchor police, an attempt was made by the occupant of the said vehicle to commit murder by firing a gun-shot, to which they escaped by ducking, and therefore, the prosecution was lodged against these apprehended people for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 307 etc. Having come to know about the present offence, it appears that the revolver was passed-over to Deesa police.

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Mridul Barot appearing for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has acquitted four of the accused persons and convicted the present appellants on same set of evidence. He submitted further that the assailants were not known to the victims. They were not named in the FIR. However, the accused persons were booked and brought before the Court on the basis of identification by the witnesses in the TIP. He submitted that the TIP was not properly conducted. According to him, witnesses Dineshbhai, Rajubhai and Jagdishbhai have admitted in their depositions that they were shown the arrestees, before the TIP was conducted. The TIP, therefore, was of no use so far as these witnesses are concerned.

(3.) LEARNED APP Mr. Bhatt has opposed these appeals. According to him, in such cases, details of assailants would not be available, so as to be narrated in the FIR, but, five persons were arrested by Sanchor police, while intercepting the vehicle and they were found to be carrying fire arms. They seem to have admitted their involvement in the Deesa case i. e. the present incident. The trial Court was, therefore, justified in recording the conviction. He submitted further that out of nine accused, only five are convicted, as there is evidence against them, and rest of the persons are acquitted for want of adequate evidence. This shows that the matter has been judiciously dealt with. Court may not interfere with the findings and the appeals may be dismissed.