The appeal concerns the judgment dated 13th February 2017 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 1997, which altered the conviction of Vinod Jaswantray Vyas from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, sentencing him to eight years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the heirs of the deceased, Jeeva. The case involves the custodial death of Jeeva due to alleged torture by Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (A1) and his co-accused Chinubhai Govindbhai Patel (A2).

Case Background

• Trial Court Judgment: The Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, convicted A1 and A2 for offences under Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, with additional imprisonment in default.
• Appeal to Gujarat High Court: Both accused appealed. A2 passed away during the appeal, but his legal heirs continued due to potential impacts on his benefits. The High Court reduced the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC.
• Supreme Court Appeal: A1 appealed to the Supreme Court, and after his death, his legal heirs continued the appeal under Section 394 CrPC.

Facts of the Case

1. A1 was a Police Inspector at Amraiwadi Police Station, Ahmedabad.
2. The deceased, Jeeva, surrendered at the police station on 10th June 1992, with his advocate and sisters.
3. A2 allegedly assaulted Jeeva with A1, resulting in multiple injuries.
4. Jeeva was taken to judicial custody and then to Sabarmati Central Jail, where he died on 12th June 1992.
5. Jeeva’s sister lodged a complaint about custodial torture after his death, leading to the trial and conviction of A1 and A2.

Appeal Arguments

On Behalf of the Appellant (A1)

1. Delay in lodging the complaint.
2. Lack of motive for A1 to assault Jeeva.
3. Inconsistent injuries on Jeeva compared to co-accused.
4. No complaint by Jeeva when presented before the Magistrate.
5. Possibility of assault in jail rather than the police station.
6. Unreliable and inconsistent eyewitness accounts.
7. Improbability of severely injured Jeeva climbing stairs.
8. A1's seasoned service record negating visible assault marks.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. High Court’s affirmation of trial court’s findings based on substantial evidence.
2. Reliable witness testimonies with no reason to falsely implicate A1.
3. Immediate complaint lodged by Jeeva’s sister following his death.
4. Trustworthy evidence and credible witnesses relied upon by prosecution.

Court's Analysis

1. Examination of event sequence, witness testimonies, and medical evidence.
2. Severe injuries indicative of custodial violence.
3. Consideration of red soil presence from Sabarmati Central Jail on Jeeva’s body.
4. Analysis of timing and nature of injuries and their infliction.
5. Scrutiny of eyewitness credibility and consistency.

Conclusion

• Evidence Support: The evidence supports the trial court and High Court’s findings regarding the guilt of A1 and A2 in causing Jeeva’s death due to custodial violence.
• Appropriate Conviction: Considering the nature of injuries and case circumstances, the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC is deemed appropriate.
• Appeal Addressed: The appeal by A1’s legal heirs is addressed in light of established facts and applicable legal provisions.

Discrepancies and Contradictions

• Testimony Doubts: Inconsistent and unreliable testimonies of prosecution witnesses cast doubt.
• Medical Evidence: Contradictions with medical evidence weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Witness Conduct: Unnatural conduct of witnesses undermines their credibility.
• Injury Discrepancies: Discrepancies in injuries and their timing raise reasonable doubt.

Final Decision

The court must exercise caution in relying on uncorroborated testimonies. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Jeeva was subjected to custodial torture by the accused police officers. Discrepancies and medical evidence do not support severe assault allegations, leading to the acquittal of the accused.