-
by Admin
19 February 2026 3:14 PM
Gujarat High Court in a strongly reasoned verdict upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of Nirav @ Ravi Maheshbhai Shah and Dhaval @ Jato Darji, accused of kidnapping a 17-year-old engineering student for ransom and murdering him the same day. The Court, comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice P. M. Raval, delivered the judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1808 of 2019 and 1691 of 2021, affirming the Sessions Court's decision in Sessions Case No. 99 of 2015.
The appellants had challenged the conviction under Sections 302, 364A, 363, 201 and 506(2) IPC, arguing that the case was based solely on circumstantial evidence and fraught with procedural defects. However, the High Court decisively held:
“The prosecution has successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence which is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and incompatible with their innocence.”
The Court found that the prosecution not only satisfied the classic five-fold test laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, but also conclusively proved each element of the offence under Section 364A IPC, including the demand of ransom and the fatal consequences that followed.
“Last Seen Together, Ransom Demand, Recovery of Dead Body and Incriminating Articles — All Elements Form a Cohesive Chain Leading to Conviction”
The High Court gave substantial weight to the testimonies of PW-9 Kartikkumar Joshi and PW-10 Mahipatsinh Rajput, who confirmed having last seen the deceased Devang Thakar in the company of both accused at the Bindu Sarovar pick-up stand at 8:00 AM on 18 August 2015. The Court rejected the defence’s argument that the timing of the recording of their statements undermined their credibility.
“Minor discrepancies in timing and omissions in early statements are not sufficient to demolish the entire prosecution case, especially when the core narrative remains intact and is corroborated by other evidence.”
The Court noted that while the FIR did not name the accused, this could not weaken the last-seen theory, as the complainant (PW-1) stated he had not suspected them initially, despite later learning they were seen with his son.
“This lapse, at best attributable to human behaviour in a moment of crisis, cannot undo the legally admissible and corroborated last-seen evidence.”
“Ransom Calls from Victim’s Phone and Subsequent Murder Establish Offence Under Section 364A IPC”
The father of the deceased, PW-1 Hiteshkumar Thakar, testified that he received two calls from his son’s number demanding ₹40 lakhs and threatening to kill Devang if the police were informed. The number belonged to him but was used by Devang. The Court noted that this fact was corroborated by customer registration documents and a 65B certificate from the telecom provider.
“The elements of kidnapping, threat to life, and demand for ransom are all present and duly proved. Section 364A IPC is clearly attracted.”
The Court dismissed the argument that the failure to recover the mobile phone used for the calls was fatal, observing that the identity of the number and the complainant’s unrebutted testimony were sufficient.
“Recovery of Dead Body and Blood-Stained Articles at Accused’s Instance is Admissible and Clinching Evidence Under Sections 27 and 8 of the Evidence Act”
The most incriminating development in the case came from the disclosure and recovery of the victim’s body at the instance of the accused Nirav Shah, made in the presence of independent panchas. The accused led the police to a mud pit in Balaram forest, from where the decomposed body of Devang was exhumed.
The Court observed: “The accused’s conduct in pointing out the place of burial is admissible as evidence under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the recovery of the body is a fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27.”
Further recoveries at the instance of Nirav and Dhaval included blood-stained clothes, a knife, the victim’s school bag, and the car used in the crime. These articles bore blood of group 'B', which matched the victim's blood group as confirmed in the FSI report (Exh.126).
“Discovery of these articles is not only admissible but significantly strengthens the prosecution’s chain of circumstantial evidence.”
The Court also rejected defence arguments regarding alleged irregularities in the discovery process, such as the failure to name the person who provided keys to the premises, noting that:
“Such omissions are peripheral and cannot overshadow the substantive fact that incriminating items were recovered from places exclusively known to the accused.”
“Silence and Denial Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Displace Incriminating Circumstances Proved by the Prosecution”
The Court strongly censured the accused for offering no plausible explanation when confronted with incriminating circumstances in their Section 313 CrPC statements. Both Nirav and Dhaval simply denied knowledge or claimed ignorance.
“The accused merely stated they have been falsely implicated but failed to respond meaningfully to the concrete circumstances pointing to their guilt. This silence justifies drawing adverse inference under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.”
The Court reiterated the principle that when the accused is last seen with the deceased, and the death is proved to be homicidal, burden shifts on them to offer an explanation.
“Extra-Judicial Confession Cannot Be the Sole Basis of Conviction, But Supports Other Evidence When Found Reliable”
The Court addressed the deposition of PW-11 Suraj Rami, who claimed that Dhaval confessed to the murder in a private conversation. While noting some delay and weak personal ties between the witness and accused, the Court still found the statement useful:
“As laid down in Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., an extra-judicial confession cannot form the foundation of conviction but may lend assurance to the other evidence. In this case, it fits precisely in that role.”
The Court thus held that even excluding the confession, the prosecution’s case stood independently on its merits.
“Failure to Prove Motive Not Fatal When Circumstantial Chain is Otherwise Complete”
Although the prosecution could not definitively establish motive, such as financial debt or greed, the Court made it clear that:
“Motive is not a sine qua non for conviction when the circumstantial evidence is compelling. In this case, every link from kidnapping to murder to discovery of body has been proved.”
The Court relied on Atley v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807, to reinforce this principle.
“Presumption Under Section 114 of Evidence Act Read with Conduct Under Section 8 Justifies Conviction”
The Court found that the conduct of the accused, including their leading the police to the burial site, their presence with the victim shortly before his death, and their failure to offer an explanation, all added up to a compelling inference.
“The Court may presume the existence of certain facts under Section 114 based on natural human conduct. When accused are last seen with the victim and provide no explanation, guilt becomes a natural conclusion.”Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence Is Not Only Legal But Justified on Facts
The Gujarat High Court summed up the case by stating:
“This is a case where the prosecution has established an unbroken chain of circumstances — from last seen, to ransom call, to recovery of body, to blood evidence, and failure to explain. Even excluding the extra-judicial confession, the guilt of the accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed and the life sentences confirmed. The Court directed both accused to surrender within four weeks if they are out on bail
Date of Decision: 30 September 2025
