LexVIJAY RANGLAL CHORASIYA versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2014] 5 S.C.R. 755 VIJAY RANGLAL CHORASIYA V. STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 953 of 2009) APRIL 25, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B s.364-A rlw s.120-8 - Kidnapping for ransom- Out of 10 c accused, 5 convicted - High Court further convicting one of the accused who had earlier absconded and when apprehended tried separately and acquitted by trial court - Appeal by two of 5accused convicted by trial court as also by accused whose acquitta/'was reversed by High Court - Held: 0 As regards concurrent orders of conviction passed by trial court and High Court in respect of two appellants, there is no reason to take a view different from the one taken by courts below, as prosecution has proved guilt of two accused- appellants beyond reasonable doubt - There is no perversity E in the view taken by the courts below to warrant interference under Art. 136 of the Constitution - In respect of appeal of the accused whose acquittal was reversed by High Court, the order passed by High Court is set aside and matter remitted to it for disposal afresh keeping in view the observations made in the judgment - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136. Evidence: Voice in tape recorded machines - Voice spectography F - Held: Voice of one of the accused, in tape recorded G machine, was identified by witnesses as one of the callers who had demanded ransom for release of victim - Scientific officer examined Voice Spectrography of the caller to prove that voice recorded was of the accused - Peal Code, 1860 - s. 163- A. 755 H 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R. A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.299 - Record of evidence in absence of accused - Accused absconding - Trial of other accused persons resulted in conviction of some of accused persons - 8 Absconding accused later tried separately - Application of prosecution for transfer of depositions in earlier Sessions Trial to subsequent Sessions Trial rejected by trial court - Accused acquitted - High Court relying on the evidence in previous trial, convicting the accused - Held: High Court does not appear to have taken note of the rejection order - It has, on C the contrary, erred in proceeding on the basis that the evidence adduced in the previous trial was evidence in the case against the appellant validly transferred uls 299 - Even assuming that the deposition in terms of s. 299 had been transferred to the case against the appellant, it may have been D open to appellant-accused to argue that such a transfer was not valid in the eyes of law and could not, therefore, be read against him - Matter remitted to High Court for hearing and disposal afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the E observations made in the judgment. The appellants-accused A-2 and A-4 alongwith A2, A3, A5, A11, A7, AB, A9 and A10 were prosecuted for abducting PW-13 for ransom. The appellant, in criminal appeal no. 1125 of 2009 (AG), had absconded and was F tried separately when apprehended. The trial court convicted A2 to A5 and A 11 uls 3G4-A read with s. 120-8, IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. A7, AB, A9, A10 and AG were acquitted. In the appeals filed by the accused against their conviction and sentence and the State Government challenging the G acquittal of A7 to A10 and AG, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of A2 to A5 and A11 and dismissed the appeal of the State Government against acquittal of A7 to A10. The High Court further reversed the acquittal of AG and convicted him u/s 3G4-A read with H VIJAY RANGLAL CHORASIYA v. STATE OF·GUJARAT 757 s. 120-B IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. A A-3, A-4 and. A-11 did :10t agitate the matter any further. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. In so far as the concurrent orders of conviction passed by the trial court and the High Court 8 against A2 and A5 are concerned, on a careful appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, there is no reason much less a compelling one to take a view different from that taken by the courts below, as the depositions of witnesses examined at the trial have C proved the guilt of these two accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced at the trial connects these two accused persons with the commission of the crime they stand charged with. That evidence is reliable and has been rightly accepted by the D courts below
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.