Decided on January 13,1983

(The) State Of Gujarat Appellant
Ranjitsinh Jivanji Vaghela And Others Respondents


A.N.SURTI - (1.) The next question which troubled us who is that human soul who is interested in removing Shobhar from Gandhinagar to Baroda.
(2.) It is at this stage that we may mention that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be necessary evidence as to strong motive on the part of the accused persons to commit the crime. That principle is well settled. In the instant case accused No. 1 who is a young man aged about 26 years was having a disturbed matrimonial life with deceased Shobhar. Shobhar was a sore a thorn in his life. He had submitted to the deviceof character assassination so far as Shobhar was concerned. He has alleged several things in Ex. 30 against Shobhar. He attacked the character of deceased Shobhar. He made the grievance against the conduct and behaviour of Shobhar in his letter addressed to his father-in-law. Accused No. 1 was even first to allege or to suggest intimacy of Shobhar with another person. He had fallen in love with Accused No. 3. The fact that he had fallen in love with accused No. 3 is duly proved on the record of the case. Under these circumstances what was the anxiety of accused No. 1 right from 9/12/1979 ? Accused No. 1 adopted the device to build his defence brick by brick from 9/12/1979 to Decem 12/12/1979 hardly realising that such a device is nothing but a palace of cards. On 9/12/1979 he wrote a registered letter to his father-in-law for the first time making an apparent show that he was legitimately genuinely making a grievance about Shobhars behaviour in his house. After the commission of the crime accused No. 1 made a show before the authority at Gandhinagar that he was anxious to find out Shobhar and that he was keen to get assistance of police machinery. The prior conduct of accused No. 1 in writing a letter Ex. 30 to his father-in-law and the subsequent conduct of accused No. 1 in firstly misguiding his father-in-law on 9/12/1979 and in contacting the police on 12/12/1979 are nothing else but devices adopted by accused No. 1 to avoid detection of the crime in question. It may be significantly emphasised at this stage that prosecution witness Kanaji-P.W.7-the father of deceased Shobhar rightly used the expression in an application addressed to D. S. P. Gandhinagar-Ex.32 that accused No. 1 is very clever (CHALAK) and that accused No. 1 would systematically and methodically programme to do away with his daughter. In the facts and circumstances of the case accused No 1 and accused No. 1 alone had a strong motive to commit the crime in question who else save and except accused No. 1 is interested in committing the homicidal death of deceased Shobhar ? It may be emphasised that in the residential premises in question only Shobhar accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 were residing. No fourth person was residing in the block in question. Who is interested under the circumstances to commit the crime in question ? Who is interested in telling untruth or patent falsehood to the police machinery on 12/12/1979 ? But as against patent glaring truths devices of a human mind based on falsehood and mens rea can hardly stand in competition. Accused No. 1 as already stated made character assassination right from 9/12/1979 and the same character assassination reflected against deceased Shobhar even when he gave information to the police that Shobhar was missing on 12/12/1979 It may be noted that the information given to the police by accused No. 1 that on 11/12/1979 Shobhar had absconded. The neighbours of the accused persons falsified that information. The find of the dead body at Baroda falsifies that version.
(3.) The next question is who can be the person who can remove the body of Shobhar from the residence of accused persons to Baroda. Accused No. 2 is the father of accused No. 1. He was a driver attached to the then Honble Home Minister. As discussed in detail he had with him the car in question. Accused No. 2 got the car in question at 3-00 P. M. on 10/12/1979 Next door neighbour Budhaji-P.W. 10 actually saw him with the car at 7-00 P. M. on 10/12/1979 just near the very residence of the accused persons. at 10-00 P.M. on the night in question Budhaji heard the noise of the driving of the car in question on 10/12/1979 Budhaji (at 10 P.M. on the night in question) actually saw accused No. 2 driving the car and in the front seat he was in the company of accused No. 1. Do these circumstances not lend assurance to us that the father and the son removed the dead body of Shobhar from Gandhinagar to Baroda.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.