LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

VINOD JASWANTRAY VYAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 365 · Decided: 09-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 365 : 2024 INSC 490
Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through Lrs. 
v. 
The State of Gujarat
(Criminal Appeal No. 2038 of 2017)
09 July 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 
13.02.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, 
whereby, the Division Bench partly accepted the appeal preferred 
by the appellant accused-A1 and altered his conviction as recorded 
by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of 
the Penal Code, 1860 to one under Section 304 Part I IPC.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – Custodial torture – Death of victim – 
Acquittal of accused – Prosecution case that the two police 
officers i.e. A1 and A2, assaulted J in the confines of the 
Amraiwadi police station at separate intervals causing multiple 
injuries all over his body due to which he later died – Trial 
Court proceeded to convict both the accused and sentenced 
them to imprisonment for life – A1 and A2 appealed before 
the High Court – During the pendency of appeal, A-2 expired – 
High Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court, however, 
the offence was toned down from Section 302 IPC to offence 
under Section 304 Part I IPC – Correctness:
Held: J had come along with his advocate and his two sisters 
namely, PW-1 and PW-2 and surrendered at the Amraiwadi  police 
station – Next evening J was produced before the jurisdictional 
Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody whereafter, he 
was taken to and lodged at the Sabarmati Central jail – J’s condition 
deteriorated in the prison, later he died – It is further revealed from 
the records that deceased-J had been taken and presented before 
the DCP at the Karanj Bhavan, Ahmedabad and only thereafter, 
he was produced in the concerned Court of the Magistrate – The 
Medical Jurist (PW-9) stated that the person having received the 
injuries noted in the post-mortem report (Exhibit-50) would not be 
* Author
366
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
able to climb a stair case without support and that the expression 
of the person and his movement would be painful – Thus, there 
was hardly any possibility that after having received the injuries 
mentioned in the postmortem report (Exhibit-50), deceased-J could 
have climbed up the stairs of Karanj Bhavan, Ahmedabad for being 
presented before DCP – Furthermore, on being presented before the 
Magistrate, the expression of pain on the face of the victim, would 
be prominently visible and could not have escaped being noticed by 
the Magistrate – Medical Jurist (PW-9) opined in his examination in 
chief that the injuries caused to the deceased were fresh and must 
have occurred within six to eight hours of the death – Thus, there 
is formidable evidence of the Medical Jurist (PW-9) which totally 
discredits the version of the eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3) 
that deceased-J was inflicted the injuries leading to his death while 
being in police custody at the Amraiwadi Police Station – Their 
evidence is contradicted in material particulars by the medical 
evidence and other attending circumstances – Considering the 
unimpeachable and strong opinion of the Medical Jurist (PW-9), 
the probability of the victim having been assaulted in Sabarmati 
Central jail leading to the fatal injuries noted in the postmortem 
report (Exhibit-50) is much higher as compared to the theory set up 
in the complaint and the evidence of the star prosecution witness 
that deceased-J was fatally assaulted by A1 and A2 while he was 
detained at the Amraiwadi Police Station – The prosecution has 
failed to bring home the guilt of both the accused persons (A1)
(since deceased) and (A2)(since deceased) by leading cogent, 
convincing and reliable evidence and their conviction as recorded 
by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable 
in the eyes of law – Resultantly, both accused A-1 and A-2 are 
acquitted of the charges. [Paras 41, 42, 43, 46, 50, 52]
Evidence – Testimony of witness – Unnatural conduct:
Held: In the instant case, two sisters (PW-1 and PW-2) claimed 
to have personally witnessed the assault being made on J 
(deceased)Β  – They admitted in their cross-examination that 
they had been arraigned as accused in a couple of prohibition 
cases –  Thus, it can safely be inferred that these two so-called 
eyewitnesses were having sufficient contact with the legal system 
and were well aware of the legal machin

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