(Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
State of Gujarat __________________________________ Petitioner;
v.
Dhirendrasingh @ Jabarsingh Chauhan ________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. …425 of 2018 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 1071/2018], decided on March 15, 2018
With
Criminal Appeal No. …426 of 2018 SLP (Crl) No. 1421/2018
Criminal Appeal No. …425 of 2018 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 1071/2018); Criminal Appeal No. …426 of 2018; and SLP (Crl) No. 1421/2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties including learned counsel for the father of the deceased.
3. It appears that Velcee (Accused No. 3) was having an extra marital affair with Suketu (Accused NO. 1) and she conspired to have her husband murdered by Suketu (Accused NO. 1). It also appears that the driver of Suketu – Dhirendrasinh (Accused NO. 2) was also involved in the crime.
4. According to Velcee, on or about 28th June, 2016, 2-3 unknown persons came to her house and killed her husband. From the allegations made, it appears that this story was concocted by Velcee to try and shift the blame from the person with whom she was having an extra marital affair i.e. Suketu.
5. After investigations, on 25th September, 2016, a charge sheet was filed against all the three accused. In the meanwhile on 30th June, 2016, the accused persons were arrested. We are told that so far as Velcee is concerned, she has a 1½ years old child and for that reason, she was granted bail.
6. As far as Dhirendrasinh is concerned, he filed an application for bail which was rejected by the Sessions Judge but was eventually allowed by the High Court vide Judgment dated 28.11.2017.
7. We have gone through the material on record and it does appear to us prima facie without arriving at any definite conclusion in that regard that the entire episode was stage managed by Velcee to get rid of her husband so that she could perhaps live with Suketu (Accused No. 1).
8. We have also been shown the number and nature of injuries inflicted upon the deceased. On going through the post mortem Report, we find that nine injuries with a knife were inflicted upon the deceased and some of the injuries are extremely deep i.e. upto 14cm. In other words, it does appear that the killing of the deceased was in a brutal manner. There also appears to be some evidence to indicate the presence of Dhirendrasinh in the premises including the statement of the guard and some CCTV footage. We do not propose to go into this since it is a matter of evidence which will have to be looked into by the Trial Judge. In our opinion, the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of offence and the manner and circumstances in which the offence under Section 302, IPC was committed.
9. Under the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 28.11.2017 and direct the State to take Dhirendrasinh into custody immediately.
10. The criminal appeals are disposed of.
The State of Gujarat _________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Dhirendrasingh @ Jabarsingh Chauhan _______________ Respondent
(IA No. 31196/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS and IA No. 31197/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 1421/2018 (II-B)
Date : 15-03-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR
Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv.
Ms. Vishakha, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR
Ms. Naveen Goel, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Bhagirath N. Patel, Adv.
Mr. Kishan Daiya, Adv.
Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
11. Leave granted.
12. We set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 28.11.2017 and direct the State to take Dhirendrasinh into custody immediately.
13. The criminal appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
———
