Manubhai Harjibhai Harijan Solanki vs The State of Gujarat

J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—The appellant challenged his conviction recorded by learned Fast Track Court Judge, Gondal camp at Upleta on 15.06.2006 in Sessions Case No. 169 of 1995 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'', for short) and was sentenced to undergo R.I for six years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I for three months for the offence punishable under Setion 307 of the IPC and R.I for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I for one month for the offence punishable u/s 324 of the IPC.

The prosecution case in nutshell is that the incident occurred on 19.6.1995 and on the day of the incident, it is alleged that the appellant caused serious injuries to injured Danabhai Chanabhai Parmar, with knife. Regarding the incident, FIR came to be lodged by wife of the injured, named, Shantaben Danaben Parmar before police. Investigation was commenced and after collecting relevant material for the lodgment of chargesheet, the chargesheet came to be lodged in the Court of ld.JMFC, Upleta. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Gondal camp at Upleta, which came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 169 of 1995.

The learned trial Judge framed charge at Exh.1 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 of the IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the ld.trial Judge evaluating the evidence on record and considering the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, recorded conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the IPC, and awarded the sentence as hereinabove referred to in this judgment.

The ld.advocate Ms. Kapadia for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in jail since five years and eight months, as against the sentence of six years R.I. It is submitted that considering the evidence on record and the appreciation of the same by the trial Court, the appellant is not challenging the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court. However, it is submitted that considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since last five years and eight months and the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is R.I for six years and the sentence is likely to be over in near future, it is therefore, requested that the period undergone, would be the just and appropriate sentence, so far as the appellant is concerned. It is also submitted that the appellant is poor and considering his poverty, even the total fine of Rs. 1500/- is on higher side.

Ld.APP Mr. Nanavati for the respondent - State submitted that as per the jail remarks sheet, the appellant is in jail since five years and eight months, as against maximum sentence of R.I for six years by the trial Court. It is further submitted that since the involvement of the appellant and conviction recorded by the trial Court is not challenged, appropriate order for sentence may be passed.

Considering the fact that the appeal is not pressed on merits, so far as conviction aspect is concerned, and even otherwise considering the record, it transpires that prosecution examined over and above injured Danabhai Chanabhai, the other eye-witnesses, and the ocular evidence is supported by the medical evidence, therefore, the trial Court rightly recorded the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the IPC.

However, so far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court awarded R.I for six years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I for three months for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC and S.I for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I for one month for the offence punishable u/s 324 of the IPC. There is no dispute that as against the maximum sentence of R.I for six years, the appellant is in jail since last five years and eight months. In the result, if the appeal is not heard, his entire sentence would be over in near future. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, this is a fit case, even for reduction of sentence.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction recorded by Fast Track Court, Gondal camp at Upleta on 15.6.2006 in Sessions Case No. 169 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the IPC, is confirmed. However, the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellant of R.I for six years and fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and fine is reduced to Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I for two months and the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court of S.I for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable u/s 324 of the IPC is reduced to S.I for three years and fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I for one month. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of set-off.