The Gujarat High Court today suspended the Life-imprisonment sentence of Ex-BJP MP Dinu Bogha Solanki who was convicted via way of means of a special CBI court in 2019 for killing RTI activist Amit Jethwa in 2010 after the activist had attempted to show unlawful mining activities withinside the Gir forest region.

Suspending his sentence and granting him conditional bail, the Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice AC Joshi observed that the CBI court’s judgment became primarily based totally on ‘assumptions and presumptions’ and that the decision became ‘prima facie erroneous’.

His sentence has been suspended in the course of the pendency of his appeal (file against CBI’s Court conviction judgment) earlier than the Gujarat High Court. The Court found that the case changed primarily based totally on circumstantial proof and stated the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra 1984 AIR 1622 and noted that the accused of an offense need to be and now no longer can be proved to be guilty.

 The Court additionally found that to begin with the applicant changed into now no longer named as an accused, both through the national police authorities or through the CID, however, while the problem changed into transferred to CBI withinside the year 2013, and the CBI found in its research that one man or woman who changed into hired through the applicant said that he had heard applicant pronouncing that something changed into had to be finished concerning the deceased. Therefore, in the year 2013, the CBI named him because the top accused of hatching conspiracy to kill the deceased (RTI activist).

The Court further added, “It is needless to mention that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a unique law. At the risk of repetition, it is recorded that Section 28 of the stated Act sincerely states that each one complaint beneath Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 and offenses beneath  Section 31 shall be ruled through the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, while the Special Act sincerely lays down the manner of trial of the proceedings beneath the stated Act, there’s definitely no motive to use some other manner. The best exception being in Section 26 of the stated Act is wherein a civil suit is pending among the parties, the aggrieved man or woman can pray for remedy beneath Section 18-23 in the stated suit.”

A complaint has been lodged by the petitioner’s daughter-in-law on August 20, 2017 beneath various provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She had additionally moved one of a kind forums for maintenance- a utility have been filed beneath Section 125 of CrPC earlier than the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar and relief had also been sought beneath neath the Domestic Violence Act. This was objected to by the petitioners through contending that one-of-a-kind forums couldn’t be moved for the equal cause of action as it would amount to double jeopardy. However, such an objection became dismissed through the Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar. Against the impugned order of the Magistrate, the immediately criminal revision petition has been filed

 However, Justice Chaudhuri dismissed the instant revision petition through the ruling, “Without going into the merit of the immediately revisional application, I would really like to record that I actually have already held that an order allowing or rejecting a utility for maintainability of an intending beneath Section 12 of the stated Act is very last in nature affecting the rights and/or liabilities of the events in terms of the query as to whether or not the aggrieved man or woman is entitled to get remedy beneath Section 18-22 and Section 23(2) of the said Act. In view of my particular finding made hereinabove, the impugned order is made appealable beneath Section 29 of the said Act.”

However, leave was granted to the petitioners to file an appeal before the concerned sessions Court.

Case Title: Chaitanya Singhania & Anr v. Khusboo Singhania


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here