LAWS(GJH)-1999-7-62

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ANILKUMAR PURANMAL GUPTA

Decided On July 24, 1999
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
ANILKUMAR PURANMAL GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision applications arise out of an order that came to be passed by the learned City Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No : 195 of 1998 below application Exh.7, 8 & 15 tendered before him. These applications were tendered on behalf of the different accused persons for discharge. The learned Additional City Sessions Judge after considering the arguments advanced and their merits, passed impugned order on 2 2/01/1999 granting application and rejecting remaining two applications. The State having been aggrieved by grant of application Exh.6 discharging accused No.8 has preferred Criminal Revision Application No : 141/99. While these applications were being argued, the arguments were advanced for discharge of accused No. 2 & 6 before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order, did not consider the oral request for discharge of accused No . 2 & 6 for which the accused No. 2 & 6 are aggrieved and they have therefore preferred Criminal Revision Application No : 220 of 1999 seeking quashing and setting aside the direction of the learned Additional City Sessions Judge for framing charge against accused persons including accused No. 2 & 6. Under these circumstances, both these revision applications are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Before the arguments are considered, brief facts of the matter may be recorded. According to the prosecution case, one Surendrakumar Nandkishor Agrawal (accused No.1) runs his business at Ahmedabad in the name and fashion of Vaishali Emporium. He had engaged one lady Chartered Accountant who later became a Director, named Sushama Nilkantha Vaidya (the deceased). It is further case of the prosecution that association of these two persons ultimately resulted into an affair between the two and as a result accused No.1 rented a premises at Gandhinagar to facilitate continuance of the affair and association. Accused No.2 Manjuben is the wife of Surendrakumar Nandkishor Agrwal, Accused No.1. Accused No.3 Narendrakumar Punamchandra Gupta is the cousin brother of accused No.2. Accused No.4 Atul Babubhai Sharma is the employee of accused No.1. Accused No.5 Ramchandra Ramfal Awasthi is the driver of accused No.1. Sangitaben wife of Arvindbhai Chhotalal Shah - accused No.6 is the an employee of accused No.1. Accused Anilkumar Puranmal Gupta is the brother in law of Narendra Punamchandra Gupta accused No.3.

(3.) As per the prosecution case, the affairs between accused No.1 and the deceased were not approved and /or appreciated by accused No.2. It caused disturbance in the family life and therefore, a conspiracy was hatched amongst accused persons to do away with the deceased. In order to complete act conspired, they arranged a Sari sale at Surat between 12/08/1997 and 17th August, 1997. For this purpose, accused No.1 and many of his staff members went to Surat on 10th August, 1997. Agrawal Samaj Hall at Surat was the venue of the Sale and the sale party was lodged at Hotel Every Day Inn. It is further the case of the prosecution that deceased was not inclined to go to Surat to attend the Sale. But somehow, accused No.1 prevailed upon her and convinced her to go to Surat on 12/08/1997. The deceased had a social function to attend at Bombay on 15/08/1997 and she therefore went to Surat on 1 2/07/1997, stayed at Hotel Every Day Inn and on 14th night she headed for Bombay and returned from Bombay in early morning hours of 16/08/1997. In the mean time, accused No.2 who was not supposed to be attending the Sale at Surat, decided to attend sale at Surat along with her children. She travelled by her car along with accused No.3 to Surat. The car was driven by driver Ketan Modi. They started from Ahmedabad in the evening of 15th July and reached Surat in very early morning hours at about 2.15 hrs., of 16/07/1997. Arrangements were already made for their stay at Hotel Holiday Inn. On 16th at about 10.30 A.M. accused No.2 with her children went to the venue of Sale. On the other hand at about 11.30 Hrs., it was noticed that deceased who was halted at hotel Every Inn was found to be having a heated discussion on telephone with somebody. She looked very much disturbed. At that time, as per the prosecution case, the accused No.6 was also there. She tried to calm down the deceased but in vain. They both went to the room upstairs, came down again and again the deceased had some heated talk with someone on telephone. Around that time, two male persons came there, followed by accused No.1. They tried to calm down the deceased, requested her to join them at the venue of Sale and ultimately, they all went to the room upstairs. After some time, they came down. The deceased was carried out by some male members of team and it was shown that who lady suddenly fallen ill and she was being carried out for medical treatment. Thereafter on 17th August, 1997, accused No.1 went to the Hotel Every Day Inn in company of a lady who has been later on identified by one of the witnesses as accused No.2 and settled the bill. At that time, one of the witnesses casually enquired as to how was the lady who was suddenly fallen ill on previous day and the accused is said to have told him that she has recovered fully and she is the lady who is with him. Later on because the deceased did not reach Ahmedabad, her family members viz. her sister, her father and mother started making enquiry and as they did not get proper reply or information, they lodged complaint with Navarangpura Police Station about missing of the deceased. On that basis, Navarangpura Police made inquires. Simultaneously, a writ petition for Habeas Corpus also came to be filed by the father, mother and sister. That writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction by the Court that the investigation be handed over to and be persued by CID Crime Branch, Gandhinagar. Pursuant thereto, investigation was carried out by CID Crime Branch, statements recorded, identification parade held, panchnama made, lie detector test performed and ultimately chargesheet came to be filed against eight accused persons details whereof are given as above.