REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 644 of 2022 
                                                                
Hajabhai Rajashibhai Odedara              ...Appellant 
Versus  
State of Gujarat                            ...Respondent
J U D G M E N T 
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   accused   and   has
confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
learned   Trial   Court   convicting   the   appellant   herein   –   original
1

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,   120B   &   201   of   the   IPC   and   under   the
provisions of the Arms Act.
2.1 As   per   the   case   of   the   prosecution   the   co­accused
Jagrutiben and the appellant – accused fell in love.  As per the
case   of   the   prosecution,   the   appellant   and   the   co­accused   ­
Jagrutiben wanted to get married.  They hatched a conspiracy
to   kill   all   the   family   members   of   Jagrutiben.         According   to
the   case   of   the   prosecution,   in   furtherance   of   a   criminal
conspiracy, the appellant – accused and Jagrutiben killed the
mother   of   Jagrutiben   ­   Simbhiben   and   her   brother,   Mukesh
by   strangulation.     According   to   the   case   of   the   prosecution,
they also tried to kill another son, namely Rajdeep (PW66) by
strangulation.     However,   the   accused   left   Rajdeep   under   the
belief   that   he   had   died.     However,   Rajdeep   ­   PW66   survived.
He   was   examined   by   the   doctors.     The   dying   declaration   of
2

Rajdeep   –   PW66   was   recorded   in   presence   of   the   Executive
Magistrate   which   was   recorded   on   05.03.2009.     On   the
strength of the dying declaration of Rajdeep which came to be
recorded   on   05.03.2009,   the   police   Sub­Inspector   lodged   the
FIR dated 06.03.2009.  During the course of the investigation,
further statements of Rajdeep the sole witness, were recorded
on 16.03.2009, 24.03.2009 and 25.03.2009.   On the basis of
the   statement   of   the   Rajdeep   recorded   on   25.03.2009,   in
which   Rajdeep   disclosed   the   name   of   the   appellant   and   his
sister Jagrutiben, the investigation proceeded.   Thereafter the
appellant – accused was arrested.  The post mortem reports of
the   Simbhiben   and   Mukesh   revealed   that   the   cause   of   death
was asphyxia on account of strangulation.   From the place of
the   occurrence,   a   bottle   of   pesticides   was   also   recovered   and
collected  as muddamal.  It was found during the course of the
investigation   that   it   was   the   appellant   –   accused   who
purchased the said pesticide bottle which was found from the
place   of   the   occurrence.     The   statements   of   the   relevant
witnesses were recorded suggesting that it was the appellant –
accused who purchased the bottle of the pesticide which was
found   and   recovered   from   the   place   of   occurrence.       On   the
3

conclusion   of   the   investigation,   the   Investigating   Officer   filed
the   charge­sheet.     The   case   was   committed   to   the   Court   of
Sessions.     The   accused   pleaded   not   guilty.     The   co­accused
Jagrutiben,   being   a   minor,   was   tried   by   the   Juvenile   Court.
The   accused   pleaded   not   guilty   and   therefore   he   came   to   be
tried by the trial Court for the aforesaid offences.
2.3 Before   the   learned   Trial   Court   the   prosecution   heavily
relied upon the deposition of the child witness – Rajdeep who
was   examined   as   PW66.     According   to   the   prosecution,
Rajdeep   was   the   sole   eye­witness   who   was   also   tried   to   be
killed   but   could   survive.     That   the   learned   Trial   Court
convicted   the   accused   for   the   offences   under   Sections   302,
307 & 328 of the IPC.  Relying upon the deposition of the sole
eye­witnesses   –   Ex.PW66   and   also   considering   the   other
surrounding   circumstances   namely,   recovery   of   the   bottle   of
pesticide   from   the   place   of   occurrence   which   was   purchased
by   the   accused,   the   learned   Trial   Court   convicted   and
sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment with fine
of   Rs.50,000/­   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section   302
of   the   IPC;   to   undergo   life   imprisonment   with   fine   of
4

Rs.25,000/­ for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.  The
learned Trial Court also sentenced the accused to undergo five
years R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 328 of the
IPC with fine of Rs.25,000/­.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order   of   conviction   and   sentence   by   the   learned   Trial   Court,
the   accused   preferred   the   appeal   before   the   High   Court.     By
the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the   High   Court   has
dismissed   the   said   appeal   and   has   confirmed   the   judgment
and   order   of   conviction   and   sentence   passed   by   the   learned
Trial Court.
2.5 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   the   accused
has preferred the present appeal.
3. Shri   Harinder   Mohan   Singh,   learned   counsel   has
appeared   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   and   Ms.   Deepanwita
Priyanka,   learned   counsel   has   appeared   on   behalf   of   the
respondent – State.
5

3.1 Shri   Harinder   Mohan   Singh,   learned   counsel   appearing
on   behalf   of   the   appellant   has   vehemently   submitted   that   in
the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   the   High   Court   has
committed a grave/serious error in dismissing the appeal and
confirming   the   judgment   and   order   of   conviction   passed   by
the learned Trial Court convicting the accused for the offences
punishable   under   Sections   302,   307   &   328   of   the   IPC   or
having   committed   the   murder   of   Simbhiben   and   her   brother
Mukesh.
3.2 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing
for   the   accused   that   in   the   present   case   the   High   Court   has
confirmed the conviction solely relying upon the deposition of
Rajdeep   –   PW66.     It   is   contended   that,   considering   the   fact
that four different statements of Rajdeep were recorded and in
all   the   statements   Rajdeep   has   come   out   with   different
versions   of   the   incident   as   in   the   earliest   of   the   four
statements, Rajdeep did not implicate the appellant – accused
and for the first time the name of the appellant surfaced in the
last   statement   of   the   Rajdeep   recorded   on   25.03.2009,   the
conviction   passed   on   the   deposition   of   Rajdeep   –   PW66   is
6

unsustainable.     It   is   submitted   that   therefore,   both,   the
learned   Trial   Court   and   the   High   Court   have   committed   a
grave error in convicting the appellant – accused relying upon
the deposition of PW66.
3.3 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf of the accused that in the present case as such except
PW66   all   other   witnesses   including   panch   witnesses   have
turned   hostile.     It   is   urged   that   therefore   when   most   of   the
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the
appellant   has   been   wrongly   convicted   by   the   learned   Trial
Court.  
3.4 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf of the accused that as such the prosecution has failed
to  prove the  motive on  the  part  of  the appellant  – accused to
kill anyone.  
3.5 It   is   contended   by   Shri   Harinder,   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the  appellant   –   accused   that   even  the
story   of   pesticide   introduced   by   the   prosecution   is
unbelievable   when   PW58   even   did   not   identify   the   accused.
7

Therefore,   the   findings   recorded   in   para   79   recorded   by   the
High Court can be said to be perverse.  
3.6 It is submitted that it is an admitted position that as per
the   medical   reports   both   the   deceased   died   due   to
strangulation and that no poison was found from the stomach
of   the   deceased.     Therefore,   the   prosecution   version   on   the
pesticides is not believable. 
Making   above   submissions   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the
present appeal.
4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by learned counsel
on behalf of the State.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing
on   behalf   of   the   State   that   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of
the   case   no   error   has   been   committed   by   the   learned   Trial
Court in convicting the accused.
4.2 It is contended that the present case is a case of double
murder.     That   in   fact   the   accused   also   tried   to   kill   witness
Rajdeep – PW66 by strangulation, however, he survived and in
fact   he   is   the   eye­witness.     That   by   believing   the   eye­witness
8

neither   the   learned   Trial   Court   nor   the   High   Court   has
committed   any   error   in   convicting   the   accused   relying   upon
the deposition of the eye­witnesses – Rajdeep – PW66.
4.3 It   is   submitted   that   for   the   injuries   sustained   by
Rajdeep, in the incident, he took the treatment in the hospital
which   fact   has   been   established   and   proved   by   the
prosecution   by   examining   the   doctor   who   treated   Rajdeep.
4.4 It is further submitted that it may be true that there are
some   contradictions   in   the   different   statements   of   Rajdeep.
However,   looking   to   the   mental   condition   of   Rajdeep   at   the
relevant   time   and   being   a   child   who   had   seen   his   two   of   his
family members being killed and also there was an attempt to
kill   him,   and   when   his   initial   statements   were   recorded,
Jagrutiben – co­accused all throughout was present therefore
he   might   not   have   been   able   to   state   the   correct   facts.
However   subsequently   when   his   statement   was   recorded   on
25.03.2009   he   was   under   the   protective   umbrella   of   police
under   which   he   stated   the   true   facts.     It   is   submitted   that
when   the   injuries   of   the   Rajdeep   have   been   established   and
proved   by   the   prosecution   by   examining   the   doctor,   no   error
9

has   been  committed  by   the   learned   Trial  Court   and  the  High
Court relying upon the deposition of Rajdeep.
4.5 It   is   submitted   that   even   otherwise,   the   presence   of   the
accused   at   the   place   of   occurrence   has   been   established  and
proved by  the prosecution by examining  PW58 and PW60.   It
is submitted that a bottle of the pesticide was found from the
place   of   occurrence   which   was   purchased   by   the   accused
himself.  It is submitted that it may be true that the deceased
might   not   have   died   due   to   pesticide.     However,   an   attempt
was made to administer the poison as the pesticide was found
on   the   clothes   of   the   deceased.     It   is   submitted   that   to   be
doubly   sure   the   accused   even   tried   to   administer   the
pesticide.     It   is   contended   that   the   accused   has   failed   to
explain his presence and purchase of pesticide.  Therefore, the
conviction of the accused is sustainable.
5. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respective
parties   at   length.     We   have   reappreciated   the   entire   evidence
on record.  
10

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that this case is
of   double   murder.     It   is   also   required   to   be   noted   that   on
appreciation   of   evidence   and   considering   the   overall
surrounding circumstances, the learned Trial Court convicted
the   accused   for   having   killed   two   persons   and   the   same   has
been affirmed by the High Court.
6.1 Having  gone through the judgment and order passed by
the   learned   Trial   Court   as   well   as   the   High   Court   it   can   be
seen   and   it   is   true   that   while   convicting   the   accused,   heavy
reliance is placed on the deposition of Rajdeep – PW66, who is
the   eye­witness.     However,   the   fact   remains   that   five
statements were recorded of Rajdeep right from  05.03.2009 to
25.03.2009   in   which   for   the   first   time   in   the   statement
recorded   on   25.03.2009   the   name   of   the   accused   surfaced.
The   first   statement   of   the   Rajdeep   was   recorded   on
05.03.2009 which was before the  Executive Magistrate  which
was   treated   as   a   dying   declaration   in   which   Rajdeep   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
11

disclosed.   May  be because when  the  earlier  statements  were
recorded   co­accused   Jagrutiben   was   present   all   throughout
and   even   Rajdeep   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 Rajdeep.  However,
at   the   same   time   the   accused   may   not   be   convicted   on   the
deposition   of   the   sole   witness   Rajdeep.     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  purchase  of  the   bottle  of  the
pesticide   which   was   found   from   the   place   of   occurrence
purchased by the accused has been established and proved by
the   prosecution   by   examining   PW58   and   PW60.     We   see   no
reason to doubt the deposition of PW58 and PW60.   They are
cross­examined   by   the   accused.     However,   they   have   fully
supported   the   case   of   the   prosecution.     We   see   no   reason   to
doubt   their   evidence.     The   accused   has   also   failed   to   explain
12

the   aforesaid   incriminating   material/circumstances   found
against him namely the purchase of pesticides by him, prior to
the occurrence and that the very bottle of pesticide which was
purchased by him was found from the place of occurrence.  
7. Under   the   circumstances   and   considering   the   overall
facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the
learned Trial Court as well as the High Court have committed
any   error   convicting   the   accused   for   having   killed   Simbhiben
and   her   brother   Mukesh.     For   the   reason   stated   above   we
confirm   the   conviction   and   sentence   imposed   by   the   learned
Trial Court affirmed by the High Court.
8. In   view   of   the   above   discussion   and   for   the   reasons
stated   above,   the   present   appeal   fails   and   the   same   deserves
to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
                                                 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
July 11, 2022.
13