Gujarat High Court
Shaktisinh Yogendrasinh Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/212/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 212 of 2025
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO.
1 of 2025
In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 212 of 2025
==========================================================
SHAKTISINH YOGENDRASINH GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RAHUL K DAVE(3978) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 07/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service for respondent No.1.
2. The present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant - original accused No.1 under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Bhuj-Kutch below application Exh.464 in Sessions Case No.44 of 2021, whereby the prayer of the applicant to direct the prosecution to provide complete CCTV footage procured by the prosecution during the course of investigation in the Digital Video Recorder (DVR) and more particularly for the period from 00:00 hours to 21:40 hours on 20.01.2021 has been rejected.
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 22:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/212/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined
3. Brief facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are as under:-
3.1 The applicant is original accused No.1 in connection with FIR No.11205032210048/2021 registered with Mundra Police Station, District Kutch for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 343, 330, 331, 326, 212, 201, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951. The said FIR was investigated by the Police and charge-sheet came to be filed before the competent Court on 22.06.2021, which resulted into registration of Sessions Case No.44 of 2021, pending consideration before the Court of learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj.
3.2 It is the case of the prosecution that the aforesaid FIR pertains to an incident of custodial death, wherein three persons, viz. Arjan Khreaj Gadhvi, Harjog Hari Gadhvi and Shamra Pabu Gadhvi (injured witness) were arrested in connection with another FIR registered for theft (Part-A CR No.1617/2020 registered on 28.12.2020 at Mundra Police Station for offences under Sections 454, 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860). The deceased Arjan Gadhvi was brought to Mundra Police Station on 12.01.2021, while deceased Harjog Gadhvi and injured Shamra Gadhvi were brought on 16.01.2021. It is alleged that while in unlawful custody, the accused persons, including the applicant who was serving with Mundra Police Station Surveillance Staff (D Staff), assaulted them Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 22:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/212/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined with sticks, belts, fists and kicks, threatened electric shocks, placed rags of inflammable liquid on their bodies and caused injuries to genitals using mobile charger cable, leading to the death of Arjan and Harjog and serious injuries to Shamra.
3.3 The applicant was arrested on 26.03.2021 and has been in judicial custody at Special Prison, Palara, Bhuj since then. The applicant claims to be innocent and falsely implicated by senior officers.
3.4 During the trial, the applicant preferred application Exh.448 seeking CCTV footage for the period from 00:00 hours to 21:40 hours on 20.01.2021, which the trial Court allowed vide order dated 25.11.2024, directing the prosecution to provide the same.
However, the police filed a report at Exh.456 stating that there is no back-up in the DVR for the said period.
3.5 Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred application Exh.464 before the trial Court, reiterating the prayer to direct the investigating agency to provide the said CCTV footage, which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 on the grounds that the issue was raised belatedly and in view of the direction of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.21923 of 2024 to conclude the trial within two months. The applicant also preferred application Exh.466 seeking stay of the impugned order, which was rejected on the same date, i.e., 27.01.2025.
Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 22:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/212/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 3.6 Earlier, the applicant had preferred application Exh.63 under
Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was partly allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 01.10.2022. The said order was challenged before this Court in Special Criminal Application No.12021 of 2022, which is pending. The applicant also challenged the order framing charge in Special Criminal Application No.12559 of 2023, which is also pending.
3.7 In the meanwhile, one of the accused preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.21923 of 2024 before this Court seeking bail, which was disposed of on 16.01.2025 with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial within two months.
3.8 Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.01.2025, the applicant has preferred the present revision application on various grounds, inter alia, that the impugned order is arbitrary, violates principles of natural justice, contravenes Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, denies fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the CCTV footage is crucial for proving innocence and cross-examining the complainant (PW-26), whose examination is ongoing.
4. Heard Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. H.K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 - State.
5. Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani, learned advocate for the applicant Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 22:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/212/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined submitted that the prosecution has a statutory obligation under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to provide all documents and materials collected during investigation, including CCTV footage stored in electronic form. It is submitted that the footage for the period from 00:00 hours to 21:40 hours on 20.01.2021 is crucial to prove the innocence of the applicant and to cross-examine the complainant effectively. It is further submitted that the trial Court erred in rejecting Exh.464 merely on the ground of time-bound direction issued by this Court, ignoring the right to fair trial. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161; In Re. Criminal Trial Guidelines Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 598; and the decision of this Court in Maheshchandra K. Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999 (2) GLH 1029. It is also submitted that the trial Court adopted different yardsticks for prosecution and defence, allowing additional evidence for prosecution but rejecting the applicant's application. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
6. Mr. H.K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 submitted that the said applications have been made only for the purpose of prolonging the hearing of the case. It is further submitted that even if the claim made by the applicant of prosecution having assured to provide them the DVR, if not provided, then also the adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. It is further submitted that so far as the stage of Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 22:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/212/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined the case before the Special Court is concerned, the examination- in-chief of the complainant has been completed on 05.10.2024. However, the cross-examinations do differ time and again at the instance of the applicant. Not only that, it is apprehended that if such applications without deriving any substance are entertained, then it may take a longer period for the FSL to report the same, which would hamper upon the cross-examinations as well as the smooth proceedings of the trial. It is further submitted that this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.21923 of 2024 has issued the direction to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis. However, on one or other count, the matter is soon deferred at the instance of the present applicant.
7. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material on record, including the impugned order dated 27.01.2025, the applications and annexures annexed to the petition.
8. Before dealing with the merits, it is pertinent to note that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.21923 of 2024 disposed of the bail application of one of the accused on 16.01.2025 with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial on day-to-day basis within a period of two months.
9. It appears that the applicant moved the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.7458 of 2025, wherein Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 22:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/212/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined the Supreme Court dismissed the same, observing that the matter involves an interim order, dismissed the same observing that the challenge being made in a nutshell is that a notice is issued without passing the interim order. It has further been observed that the order under challenge is an application filed by the applicant under the provisions of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the production of CCTV Footage, however, the Supreme Court while considering the stage of the matter, having been reached at the fag end of the Trial, declined to accord any relief.
10. It appears as claimed by the applicant that the Mundra Police Station has recovered the DVR and further sought to provide the CCTV footage from the period from 00:00 hours to 21:40 hours on 20.01.2021. Similar applications seem to have been moved by the applicant vide Exh.448. However, the Muddamal article No.2, the DVR, if sent to the FSL would take a long time and therefore, the entire contents of the DVR recording were ordered to be copied for the date 20.01.2021 from the time 00:00 hours to 21:40 hours, in presence of the Court, so as to make it convenient to the applicant to watch and observe the same. In compliance thereof, the expert submitted the detailed report by the investigating officers vide Exh.456, wherein no data as claimed by the applicant could be traced out. Therefore, the present application has been moved by the applicant to send the DVR containing data to the FSL for the purpose of retrieval and to provide the same to the applicant.
Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 22:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/212/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined
11. The said application came to be turned down. But since it has been placed on report that no such data are available in the DVR, despite knowing the aforesaid, the applicant went on moving the applications, wherefrom it transpires that the said applications have been made only for the purpose of prolonging the hearing of the case.
12. This Court observes that the applicant's repeated adjournments of cross-examination, lacking substantive grounds, have delayed the trial despite the complainant's examination-in- chief concluding on 05.10.2024 and the directive for day-to-day proceedings in Criminal Misc. Application No. 21923 of 2024. Such delays risk prolonging the FSL report submission, hindering the smooth conduct of the trial, and the applicant is cautioned to refrain from further unwarranted deferrals. Now, reverting back to the facts of the case on hand and considering the entire material, so also the reasoning assigned by the learned Special Judge. It transpires that at the relevant time, the DVR containing CCTV video article No.5 came to be seized by the Police Officers and the entire CCTV footage of the said DVR appears to have been recovered through the FSL and the copy thereof at the relevant time has been supplied to the applicant. Not only that, even the demand and request sent by the applicant from the jail to watch and observe the CCTV footage have been considered. Hence, the applicant has already gone through, rather watched the contents of the DVR.
Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 22:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/212/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined
15. Thus, the sum and substance as to the time and place, as to the date and time, and from which device the CCTV footage recorded have been captured, has been placed on record through the prosecution witness No.12, who in turn has been extensively cross-examined by the defence. Thus, the entire material information pertaining to the CCTV footage was within the knowledge of the applicant since then.
16. Despite knowing of course it, the application vide Exh.448 came to be moved, demanding the CCTV footage and in compliance thereof, the copies thereof have been duly supplied to the applicant at the relevant time. For the particular time and date has been recovered by the investigating officers. Despite the aforesaid, the applicant has pressed for to provide him the said copies while invoking the provision of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which otherwise as per the provision of Section 207 read with Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have already been provided.
17. However, on the basis of which the entire case of the prosecution rests, it is not the case of the applicant that the documents which have been relied upon by the prosecution have not been provided to the applicant and the same has been placed on record without affording any opportunity to the applicant. However, despite the aforesaid, while reserving the liberty for the defence against the applicant's hearing, the learned Special Judge has categorically made it clear that even if the defence relies on Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 22:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/212/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined any such documentary evidence which as per the claim of the applicant have not been provided by the prosecution, the defence at the time of the defence can avail the remedy as permissible under the law for the time being enforced and which otherwise can be considered in accordance with law.
18. Despite the aforesaid liberty reserved in favour of the applicant in the impugned order, the applicant does not seem to have availed the said remedy and instead thereof went on filing the different vexatious applications and I do not find any substance in the revision applications.
19. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter at this juncture has reached at the final stage of the argument. Therefore, considering the very context of the part of the applicant who otherwise claimed that his right seems to have been curtailed by the Court does not inspire any confidence as more than sufficient opportunity seems to have been afforded to the applicant which otherwise transgressed from the order passed by the Supreme Court.
20. The applicant filed an application before the concerned Court, pressing for or demanding certain documents or electronic evidence, but these demanded items do not form part of the prosecution's documents or electronic evidence and are being sought in a piecemeal manner. Notably, data screenshots containing DVRs available to the prosecution have already been Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 22:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/212/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined provided to the applicant. The applicant's pressed demands are neither part of the DVDs nor relied upon by the prosecution, which has not depended on any such documents as claimed and demanded by the applicant, and items sought to be produced do not form part of the record of the investigation papers or the prosecution's case.
21. Although much hue and cry has been raised by the applicant that the right of defence would be defeated if the documents in question are not provided. It is not the case that the documents sought form part of the record and are relied upon by the prosecution are are not produced. In a nutshell, the applicant has sought portions in a piecemeal manner that are not part of the prosecution's reliance; if it had been the case that documents relied upon by the prosecution form part of the record but have not been provided, it would require consideration, but that is not the situation here.
22. This matter involves an interlocutory type of order, and it has now reached the final stage of arguments. In the concluding portions, the learned Judge observed that what has been pressed for by the applicant is otherwise not forming part of the record; however, if the applicant intends to rely on any such documents, they can get them on record at the stage of defence evidence. It is required to be noted that since the matter has reached the final stage of arguments, the applicant--instead of availing the recourse observed by the learned Judge--has chosen to assail the order in Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 22:27:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/212/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined toto, including challenges before this Court and on account of the issuance of notice upto the Supreme Court, which amounts to a futile exercise resulting in prolonging the trial.
23. In view of the aforesaid observations, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Bhuj-Kutch below application Exh.464 in Sessions Case No.44 of 2021. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(R. T. VACHHANI, J) MVP Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 22:27:18 IST 2025