Natverbhai Ramabhai Koli Patel and Another vs State of Gujarat

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The Appellants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28th November 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1992, whereby the Appellants have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 15th July 1992 at about 03.00 p.m. in the noon, the complainant along with two other persons went to one Magan Dayal Koli Patel at Una Village for asking about labour work. It is the case of the complainant that when they returning from Magan Dayal''s house passing through the house of Natvarrama Koli Patel, the said person called them. At that point of time, said Natvarrama Koli Patel came with iron rod in his hand and asked the complainant, Mansing and Dinesh as to why they were doing labour work with Magan Dalay? and asking this, gave a blow of iron rod on the head of Mansing. Because of blow given by Natvarrama, Mansing fell down and bleeding from his head. It is also the case of the complainant that at that time Govind Bhikha was also in the house. He came outside the house with iron rod (paras, which is used for grinding the goods) and gave one blow on the head of Dinesh. Because of blow given by the Govind Bhikha, Dinesh also fell down and bleeding from his head. Because of this incident, the complainant frightened and ran away. It is also the case of the complainant that both these persons viz. Natvarrama and Govind, chase the complainant but the complainant succeed to run away. It is also the case of the complainant that thereafter the complainant went to village Puna and told the incident to Dhirubhai Vasa. Thereafter, they went to village Una and take Mansing and Dinesh to Government Hospital, Mandvi. It is the case of the complainant that Natvar Rama was having illicit relations with wife of Magan Dayal''s wife. It is the case of the complainant that often the complainant himself, Mansing and Dinesh went to Magan Dayal''s house for labour work and as they were being obstacles in illicit relation, this incident was happened. Therefore, a complainant to the said effect was registered with Mandvi Police Station on the same day. Thereafter, statements of injured witnesses was recorded and panchnama of seen of offence was also drawn. Clothes of Mansing and Dinesh were also recovered. Thereafter, as the accused persons were found and they had produced muddamal article, panchnama was drawn for recovery of muddamal. Thereafter, as sufficient evidence was found, charge-sheet came to be filed against the present Appellants-accused.

Thereafter, charge came to be framed below Exhibit 4 against the Appellants-accused and as the Appellants-accused denied the case filed against them, trial was conducted against the Appellants-accused. Thereafter, after filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the Appellants-accused were recorded. The Appellants have denied the case of the prosecution and claimed to be tried. The Appellants have stated in their further statement that a false case is filed against them. However, the Appellants have not produced any evidence in support of their case.

Thereafter, trial was conducted before the learned Judge. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as well as documentary evidence.

After hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, by his judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28th November 1997 passed in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1992, convicted the Appellant No. 1 for the offence punishable u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also imposed fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The Appellant No. 2 convicted for the offence punishable u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also imposed fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. However, it was clarified that substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28th November 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, the Appellants herein-above have preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Hon''ble Court.

Heard Mr. D.J. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State.

Mr. Bhatt has contended that he is not arguing the matter on merits, but simply praying to reduce the conviction imposed upon the Appellants. He has contended that he is arguing the matter only for the purpose of quantum. He has contended that the order passed by the learned Judge has committed grave error in passing the order of conviction. He has also read the injury of the injured persons and contended that looking to the injury, the order passed by the learned trial Judge is very harsh in nature. He has also contended that though the defence has proved its case, the learned Judge has not considered the defence. He has also contended that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, some lenient view is required to be taken in the matter and therefore, conviction imposed upon the Appellants are required to be reduced.

Heard Mr. H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State. He has supported the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judge. He has contended that looking to the charge framed against the Appellants, order passed by the learned Judge is absolutely just and proper. He has also read the documentary evidence produced on record and contended that learned Judge has not committed any error in convicting the Appellants-accused. He, therefore, contended that the present appeal is required to be dismissed.

I have gone through papers produced before me and the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the evidence on record, it is true that the learned Judge has considered oral as well as documentary evidence and prima-facie agree with the findings recorded by the learned Judge. Even looking to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellants and circumstances of the case, if the sentence imposed upon the Appellants is reduced, same would meet with the ends of justice. Even on the ground of sympathy also sentence is required to be reduced. I am also of the opinion that the sentence is very harsh in nature and if the same be reduced, the same would meet with the ends of justice.

Hence, in view of the foregoing reasons, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 28th November 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1992, is hereby confirmed. However, the judgment and order of sentence dated 28th November 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1992 is hereby reduced and modified to the extent that now the Appellant No. 1 shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years instead of three years u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the Appellant No. 2 shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one-and-half months instead of three months u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The rest of the judgment and order dated 28th November 1997 shall remain unaltered. The Appellants-accused are on bail. This bail bond shall stand cancelled. The Appellants-accused are, therefore, directed to surrender themselves before the Jail Authority within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the trial Court concerned is directed to issue Non-bailable warrant against the present Appellants-accused to effect their arrest. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.