Naransinh Prabhatsinh Parmar and Another vs State of Gujarat

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present appellants have preferred this appeal u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 9.1.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions judge in Sessions Case No. 153/1991 whereby, the learned Judge has convicted the appellant u/s 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S/I for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/ -, in default, to undergo further S/I for 15 day, which is impugned in this appeal.

The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:

That, on 11.11.1990 at about 8.00 a.m., when Bharatbhai Ranchhodbhai, Jagdishbhai Ranchhodbhai and Vikrambhai Ranchodbhai had gone to their field, at that time, Naransing Prabhatsing, Khumansing Dhulabhai, Pravinsing Natvarsing and Shivabhai Ramabhai came there and asked them why they are not allowing the appellants-accused persons to take water and started abusing them. It is also the case of the prosecution that Pravinsing Natvarsing has given stick blow on the back-side of Vikrambhai and Khumasing Dhulabhai had given dhariya blow on the elbow of left hand of Jagdishbhai. It is further the case of the prosecution that when complainant intervened, Narayansing Prabhatsing had given dhariya blow on his head and due to that blow, there was bleeding. Due to the said quarrel, there was shouting and on hearing the shouts, mother and father of Bharatbhai came there because their house is situated near the scene of offence place. When Ranchhodbhai has scolded them, Narayansing Prabhatsing had given dhariya blow on the head of Ranchhodbhai, whereas Khumansing Dhulabhai had given stick blows on the backside as well as on leg. As per prosecution case, Shivabhai Rambhai had caused injury to Parsanben, mother of Bharatbhai, by pointed portion of dhariya on the elbow of her right hand. Due to this quarrel, there was shouts and on hearing the shouts, other persons came there and the accused persons ran away from the place of scene of offence.

Therefore a complaint came to be filed by the complainant at Virsad Police Station. The panchnama of the scene of offence place was prepared in the presence of panch witness and statements of injured witnesses were recorded and sent them to the Civil Hospital, Nadiad. Thereafter, Police has arrested the appellant- accused persons and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Borsad. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which was given number as Sessions Case No. 153/1991.

Thereafter, the charge was framed at Ex. 5 against the appellants. The appellants accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to bring the home the charge levelled against the appellants- accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also produced documentary evidence before the trial Court.

Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellants-accused u/s 313 of CrPC was recorded in which the appellants-accused have denied the case of the prosecution.

After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.1.1998 held the appellants accused guilty to the charge levelled against them u/s Guilty and convicted and sentenced the appellants accused, as stated above.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad, the present appellants have preferred this appeal.

Heard Mr. Ashok N. Parmar learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. H.H. Parikh learned APP for the respondent-State.

Mr. Parmar learned advocate appearing for the appellants has read the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants and argued that the impugned judgment and order is bad in eye of law and the learned Judge has wrongly convicted the appellants and the same requires to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Parmar has read the oral evidence of injured and contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the role of the appellants. He has also read the oral evidence of Medical Officer and contended that the the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has also read the investigation papers and contended that no proper investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer. Mr. parmar has also contended that the learned Judge has not considered the defence put forward by the appellants. He has also contended that looking to the role attributed to the appellants, it cannot be said that they have committed any offence. He further contended that the reasons assigned by the learned Judge are not as per the provisions of law and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence requires to be quashed and set aside.

As against this, learned APP Mr. H.H. Parikh has contended that this is a clear case for enhancement of sentence, but he is helpless because the State has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of sentence. He has further contended that from the oral evidence of complainant and injured witnesses, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Parikh learned APP has also contended that considering the oral evidence of Medical Officer, the prosecution has also proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Parikh learned APP has read the injury certificate and panchnama of recovery of weapon and contended that looking to the size of muddamal weapon, the injury can be possible by the said weapon. Mr. Parikh has vehemently argued that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge requires to be confirmed.

I have gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witness-complainant and also perused the charge framed against the appellants. I have also considered the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. I have also considered the oral evidence of injured witnesses, and perused medical certificate at Ex. 13 to Ex. 19, X-ray of the injured witness Ex. 20 and also considered the allegations made by the witnesses regarding the weapon used by the appellants. It appears from the above papers that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has also established that the appellants have caused the said injuries with the muddamal weapon in view of the medical certificate produced on record. I have also considered the contents of the complaint Ex. 25 and recovery panchnama Ex. 32 in view of the reasons given by the learned Judge that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt before the trial Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentenced passed by the learned Judge in a very lenient manner u/s 324 of IPC and I find no reason to interfere with the same and it requires to be confirmed.

I am in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and I am of the view that no other conclusion except the one reached by the trial Court is possible in the instant case as the evidence on record stands. Therefore, there is no valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.1.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 153/1991 is hereby confirmed. The appellants are directed to surrender before the jail authority within a period of 4 weeks from today, failing which, non-bailable warrant shall be issued against the appellants. R and P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.