HAJABHAI RAJASHIBHAI ODEDARA versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
971
HAJABHAI RAJASHIBHAI ODEDARA
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal No. 644 of 2022)
JULY 11, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 307, 328 – Murder – Prosecution
case that the accused and co-accused with the object of getting
married, hatched a conspiracy and killed the mother and the uncle
of co-accused by strangulation – Parties also tried to kill the brother
of the co-accused but he survived and became the eye-witness – On
investigation recovery of pesticide bottle from the place of
occurrence – Co-accused being minor, tried by Juvenile Court –
Conviction of accused u/ss. 302, 307 and 328 by the courts below
– Justification of – Held: Justified – Though there are some
contradictions in the different statements of brother of the co-
accused who deposed the name of the accused, however, looking
to his tender age and the fact that he suffered injuries on the neck
which was proved by the doctor, the benefit of doubt given to him –
Furthermore, it was established that the accused had purchased
the bottle of the pesticide found from the place of occurrence –
Also the accused failed to explain the said incriminating material/
circumstances found against him.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Considering the overall facts and circumstances
of the case, it cannot be said that the trial court as well as the
High Court have committed any error convicting the accused for
having killed S and her brother. Thus, the conviction and sentence
imposed by the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court is
upheld. [Para 7][978-B-C]
1.2 It is true that while convicting the accused, heavy
reliance is placed on the deposition of PW66, who is the
eye-witness. However, the fact remains that five statements were
recorded of PW66 in which for the first time in the statement
recorded on 25.03.2009 the name of the accused surfaced. The
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 971
971
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
first statement of the PW66 was recorded before the Executive
Magistrate which was treated as a dying declaration in which PW66
stated that there were three unknown persons. The name of the
accused was not disclosed. Even in the subsequent statements
also the name of the appellant-accused was not disclosed. May
be because when the earlier statements were recorded co-
accused was present all throughout and even PW66 was attempted
to be killed and may have been threatened. Also looking to his
tender age and the fact that he suffered injuries on the neck which
has been established and proved by the prosecution by examining
the doctor, the benefit of doubt can be given to PW66. However,
at the same time the accused may not be convicted on the
deposition of the sole witness PW66. There must be some further
evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the
offence. The other circumstances which implicate the accused is
recovery of the bottle of pesticide from the place of occurrence
which was purchased by the accused prior to the commission of
the offence. The same has been established and proved by the
prosecution by examining PW58 and PW60. There is no reason
to doubt the deposition of PW58 and PW60. They are cross-
examined by the accused. However, they have fully supported
the case of the prosecution. The accused also failed to explain
the said incriminating material/circumstances found against
him.[Para 6.1][977-B-H; 978-A]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
644 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.03.2019 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2015.
Harinder Mohan Singh, Ms. Shabana, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2015 by which the High Court
has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein – original
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
973
accused and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed
by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellant herein – original
accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, & 328 of
the IPC, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.
2. The appellant herein – original accused was tried by the learned
Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 328,
1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.