BABUBHAI BHIMABHAI BOKHIRIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on
April 03,2014
Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria And Anr.
Appellant
VERSUS
State of Gujarat and Ors.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PAKALA NARAYANSWAMI V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [RELIED ON]
BHOLU RAM VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [DISSENTED FROM]
HARDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
BALDEVBHAI GOVINDBHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-4-29] [REFERRED TO]AVINASH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-31] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-86] [REFERRED TO]
DINUBHAI BOGABHAI SOLANKI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2024-5-90] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAPPA GOWDA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-114] [REFERRED TO]
GODHU VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-1-436] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANKA DUTTA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2017-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
ADESH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
DEO KUMAR KASHYAP @ DEVENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-453] [REFERRED TO]
MANIDHAR MISHRA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-434] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP ALIAS SAHVAG; MALKHAN SINGH; MADURAM @ KARAMVEERA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-11-242] [REFERRED]
RAM NIWAS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-10-154] [REFERRED TO]
GURMAIL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-597] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2021-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2017-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
SAEEDA KHATOON ARSHI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2019-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHBIR KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-361] [REFERRED TO]
KULBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-595] [REFERRED]
RAVINDER AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-436] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-348] [REFERRED TO]
PARMOD KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-163] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-5-462] [REFERRED TO]
ALTAF AFTAB KHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHUNATH SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA KANT SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-184] [REFERRED TO]
NEERAJ VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-391] [REFERRED TO]
DIPENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-363] [REFERRED TO]
SATVIR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-71] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS MALL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF RAJ. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH PACHORI AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-2-75] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH GOVINDBHAI ROHIT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-8-279] [REFERRED TO]
SANJU THAKUR VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. BHAGWANI DEVI & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-221] [REFERRED TO]
SATYADEV SHARMA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-234] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KALLI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-20] [REFERRED TO]
AMRUTHESH N. P. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
SIYARAM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-6-39] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-129] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRAKASH SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
AJWAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKRABHAI KALABHAI RABARI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-133] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
CHHANGUR @ DILAWAR KHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-334] [REFERRED TO]
DILSHAD VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-173] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH DHAKAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVAK PARASHER VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATH RAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-2-41] [REFERRED TO]
VANDANA PARIHAR (VYAS), WIFE OF SHRI KAPIL PARIHAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-93] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHU RAM AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-305] [REFERRED TO]
ROHIT KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-105] [REFERRED TO]
HARJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-57] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD (MINOR) VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-277] [REFERRED]
SUMEET GANPATRAO BACHEWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIMANANDA MISHRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2017-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
CHOTELAL NISHAD VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2017-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
HIMANSHU BIPINCHANDRA SHUKLA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
ABBAS VS. STATE OF U P AND ANR [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-120] [REFERRED TO]
VILAS DAGDU SHINDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-4-113] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAMJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-241] [REFERRED TO]
GURSEWAK SINGH; SANDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA DEVI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-605] [REFERRED]
RUBABUDDIN SHAIKH VS. DAHYAJI GOBARJI VANZARA & OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-9-146] [REFERRED TO]
SUMIT VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-328] [REFERRED TO]
GURRALA SURENDRANATH SURI VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2020-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
POLA SRINIVAS REDDY AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2014-11-155] [REFERRED TO]
DIVYA SETHI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2017-5-85] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Before we proceed to consider the case, we must remind ourselves the maxim "judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur" which means that a Judge is condemned when guilty person escapes punishment. But, at the same time, we cannot forget that credibility of the justice delivery system comes under severe strain when a person is put on trial only for acquittal.
(2.)By Order dated 8th December, 2011, Veja Prabhat Bhutia was added as petitioner no. 2. He was an accused in the case and his grievance was that due to pendency of the present petition filed by petitioner Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria, his trial has been stayed and he is unnecessarily rotting in jail. This judgment shall, therefore, will have no bearing on him and the expression "petitioner/appellant" in this judgment would mean petitioner no.1/appellant no.1 Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria.
(3.)Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present petition are that one Mulubhai Gigabhai Modhvadiya was murdered on 16th of November, 2005 and for that a case was registered at Kalambaug Police Station, Porbandar, under Section 302, 201, 34, 120B, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Police after usual investigation submitted the charge-sheet and the case was ultimately committed for trial to the Court of Session. When the trial was so pending, the wife of the deceased filed an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), alleging petitioner's complicity in the crime, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was a business rival of the deceased whereas one of the main accused is his business partner with whom he conspired to kill the deceased. It was alleged that petitioner was a Minister earlier from the party which was in power in the State and therefore, he was let off during investigation. It was also pointed out that a letter written almost a year ago by the deceased was recovered from his purse in which it was stated that in the event of his death, the petitioner shall be held responsible as he intended to kill him. In reply to the said application, the Investigating Officer filed his affidavit stating therein that during the course of investigation, nobody supported the plea of the wife that the deceased was apprehending any threat from the petitioner or for that matter, any other person. In another affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, a firm stand was taken that no material had surfaced to show the complicity of the petitioner in the offence. It was pointed out by the Investigating Officer that the deceased filed an application for arms licence and in that application also he did not disclose any threat or apprehension to his life from any person, including the petitioner herein. Notwithstanding the aforesaid affidavit of the Investigating Officer, the Sessions Judge directed for further investigation. In the light of the aforesaid, the investigating agency submitted further report stating therein that the call records of the period immediately preceding the death of the deceased do not show any nexus between him and the petitioner and the deceased did not have any threat from the petitioner. In this way, the police did not find the complicity of the petitioner in the crime.
(2.)By Order dated 8th December, 2011, Veja Prabhat Bhutia was added as petitioner no. 2. He was an accused in the case and his grievance was that due to pendency of the present petition filed by petitioner Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria, his trial has been stayed and he is unnecessarily rotting in jail. This judgment shall, therefore, will have no bearing on him and the expression "petitioner/appellant" in this judgment would mean petitioner no.1/appellant no.1 Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria.
(3.)Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present petition are that one Mulubhai Gigabhai Modhvadiya was murdered on 16th of November, 2005 and for that a case was registered at Kalambaug Police Station, Porbandar, under Section 302, 201, 34, 120B, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Police after usual investigation submitted the charge-sheet and the case was ultimately committed for trial to the Court of Session. When the trial was so pending, the wife of the deceased filed an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), alleging petitioner's complicity in the crime, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was a business rival of the deceased whereas one of the main accused is his business partner with whom he conspired to kill the deceased. It was alleged that petitioner was a Minister earlier from the party which was in power in the State and therefore, he was let off during investigation. It was also pointed out that a letter written almost a year ago by the deceased was recovered from his purse in which it was stated that in the event of his death, the petitioner shall be held responsible as he intended to kill him. In reply to the said application, the Investigating Officer filed his affidavit stating therein that during the course of investigation, nobody supported the plea of the wife that the deceased was apprehending any threat from the petitioner or for that matter, any other person. In another affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, a firm stand was taken that no material had surfaced to show the complicity of the petitioner in the offence. It was pointed out by the Investigating Officer that the deceased filed an application for arms licence and in that application also he did not disclose any threat or apprehension to his life from any person, including the petitioner herein. Notwithstanding the aforesaid affidavit of the Investigating Officer, the Sessions Judge directed for further investigation. In the light of the aforesaid, the investigating agency submitted further report stating therein that the call records of the period immediately preceding the death of the deceased do not show any nexus between him and the petitioner and the deceased did not have any threat from the petitioner. In this way, the police did not find the complicity of the petitioner in the crime.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.