Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 632 (GUJ)

Bhanabhai Panchabhai Dabhi v. State of Gujarat

2013-10-15

K.J.THAKER, K.S.JHAVERI

body2013
JUDGMENT : K.J. Thaker, J. Criminal Appeal No. 1160/2007 under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the Appellant-Original Accused No. 1 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8.5.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.9, Gondal, camp at Upleta in Sessions Case No. 58/2005, whereby, the learned trial Judge has convicted the present appellant ori. Accused no. 1 under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R/I for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to undergo further R/I for one year. He is also convicted under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to undergo R/I for one month. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 2142/2009 has been preferred by the State under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.9, Gondal, camp at Upleta in Sessions Case No. 58/2005, whereby, the learned trial Judge has convicted the respondents-ori. Accused no. 2,3,4, & 5 under section 114 and 115 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R/I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to undergo R/I for three months and acquitted the accused of the charges under section 143, 147, 148, 149, 34, 323 and 506(2) of IPC levelled against them. Since both the appeals arise from common judgment and order of the trial Court, they are heard and decided by this common judgment. 2.1 The brief facts of the prosecution case is that complainant is residing at punjabi colony, near hutment, Upleta along with his wife Prabhaben and is doing the business of iron scrap. It is further the case of the prosecution that father-in-law Lakhman Somabhai Makwana as well as his sister-in-law Manjuben Lakhmanbhai is also residing near the same colony and said Manjuben had purchased one room situated near the house of accused no. 1 Bhana Lancha and accused No. 4 Hanu Pancha, which was not liked to the accused persons, and therefore, all the accused persons in abatement of each other assaulted upon father-in-law Lakhman Somabhai and sister-in-law Manjuben Lakhmanbhai with deadly weapons like knife and pipe and committed the murder of Lakhman Somabhai and Manjuben daughter of Lakhmanbhai. 1 Bhana Lancha and accused No. 4 Hanu Pancha, which was not liked to the accused persons, and therefore, all the accused persons in abatement of each other assaulted upon father-in-law Lakhman Somabhai and sister-in-law Manjuben Lakhmanbhai with deadly weapons like knife and pipe and committed the murder of Lakhman Somabhai and Manjuben daughter of Lakhmanbhai. Therefore, the complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused persons for committing murder of Lakhman Somabhai and Manjuben daughter of Lakhmanbhai. 2.2 The accused came to be arraigned for committing the murder. After the investigation, was complete, the charge-sheet was laid against the accused. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was given number as Sessions Case No. 58/2005. 2.3 Thereafter, the Sessions Court framed the charge below Exh. 1 against the accused for commission of the offence under section 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 506(2) of IPC and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.4 To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: 1. PW-1 Kishorkumar Babulal Exh. 22 2. PW-2 Rameshbhai ramabhai Exh. 24 3. PW-3 Satarbhai Noormamadbhai Exh. 26 4. PW-4 Kasambhai Amadbhai Exh. 28 5. PW-5 Shabbirbhai Motimiya Exh. 29 6. PW-6 Noormamad Ibrahim Exh. 33 7. PW-7 Pirzada Rasidmiya Husenmiya Exh. 35 8. PW-8 Irfan Ikbalkadri Exh. 37 9. PW-9 Imran Hanifbhai Exh. 38 10. PW-10 Iqbal Hasambhai Exh. 41 11. PW-11 Bodu Sattar Saiyed Exh. 42 12. PW-12 Husen Hajibhai Exh. 47 13. PW-13 Prabhaben Rameshbhai Exh. 48 14. PW-14 Nimuben Mithabhai Exh. 51 15. PW-15 Kantaben Lakhmanbhai Exh. 52 16. PW-16 Dr. Kiranbhai Kalabhai Sagathiya Exh. 53 17. PW-17 Jagdishchandra Nagindas Dave Exh. 60 18. PW-18 Natvarsinh Jilubha Chudasama Exh. 63 19. PW-19 Rajendrasinh Takhatsinh Vala Exh. 66 20. PW-20 Khumansinh Devubha Parmar Exh. 69 2.5 The prosecution also relied upon the following documentary evidences so as to bring home the charges against the accused. 1. Inquest panchnama Exh. 23 2. Complaint Exh. 24 3. Panchnama of scene of offence place Exh. 27 4. Panchnama of cltohes of deceased Exh. 30 5. panchnama of muddamal knife Exh. 34 6. panchnama of clothes of accused Exh. 36 7. Arrest panchnama Exh. 39 8. panchnama of clothes of accused Exh. 40 9. 1. Inquest panchnama Exh. 23 2. Complaint Exh. 24 3. Panchnama of scene of offence place Exh. 27 4. Panchnama of cltohes of deceased Exh. 30 5. panchnama of muddamal knife Exh. 34 6. panchnama of clothes of accused Exh. 36 7. Arrest panchnama Exh. 39 8. panchnama of clothes of accused Exh. 40 9. PM Note of Lakhmanbhai Somabhai Exh. 54 10. PM Note of Manjuben d/o Lakhmanbhai Exh. 55 11. Injury certificate of complainant Exh. 56 12. Yadi for blood sample Exh. 57 13. Yadi for PM Exh. 58 14. Yadi for preparing map Exh. 61 15. Yadi of sending map Exh. 62 16. Death form Exh. 64 17. Death form Exh. 65 18. Copy of entry No. 22/2005 Exh. 67 19. Order by PSO for investigation Exh. 68 20. Dispatch note of sending muddamal to FSL Exh. 70 21. Receipt of FSL Exh. 71 22. FSL Report Exh. 72 23. Serological report Exh. 73 24. Notification Exh. 74 25. Yadi about sending of blood sample and cloths Exh. 75 3. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the accused under section 313 of CrPC was recorded in which the accused have denied the case of the prosecution. 4. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned trial Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 held the present appellant-original accused no. 1 guilty of the charge levelled against him under section 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused no. 1, as stated above. 5. We have heard learned advocate Ms. Shalini Mayor for Ms. Archana Sagar for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1160/2007 and Ms. CM Shah learned APP for the respondent-State and for appellant-State in Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2007 and Mr. Mrudul Barot learned advocate for respondents no. 1 & 4 - ori. Accused no. 2 & 5 and Mr. H.M. Prachhak learned advocate for respondents no. 2 and 3 - ori. Accused no. 3 & 4. 6. It would be relevant for us to take Criminal Appeal No. 1160/2007 first, as it relates to challenging the conviction of the appellant-ori. Accused no. 1 under section 302 IPC. 1 & 4 - ori. Accused no. 2 & 5 and Mr. H.M. Prachhak learned advocate for respondents no. 2 and 3 - ori. Accused no. 3 & 4. 6. It would be relevant for us to take Criminal Appeal No. 1160/2007 first, as it relates to challenging the conviction of the appellant-ori. Accused no. 1 under section 302 IPC. The learned advocate for the present appellant has contended that the trial court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and order, inasmuch as it failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective, and hence, the present appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt and be acquitted. Learned advocate Ms. Shalini for the appellant has contended that the appellant must be granted benefit of doubt as the complainant though has termed himself to be eye witness, his statement that he being eye witness is contradicted by PW-14 Nimuben Mithabhai Ex. 51, who is daughter of deceased Manjuben. In her evidence, she has given the graphic picture and has contracted the version of PW-2 Rameshbhai Ramabhai Ex. 24, the complainant, that Rameshbhai has not come earlier and he had come subsequently. It is further submitted by her that his say that he is injured, is also falsified. The witnesses are not consistent about the place of incident. She has taken us through the evidence of PW-20 Khumansinh Devubha Parmar, P.I., Ex. 69. It has been contended that there is no recovery and it is further contended that even as per the medical evidence, the injuries on the dead-body possible by knife or axe and nobody were armed with axe, and therefore, the conviction is based on conjecture and surmises. She has lastly contended that the clothes were not properly sealed and it was tempered with after taking them to the FSL. She submitted that panchnama was prepared on 13th and not on 14th though the arrest of the accused made shown to be on 14th. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant may be quashed and set aside and the appeal be allowed. 7. She submitted that panchnama was prepared on 13th and not on 14th though the arrest of the accused made shown to be on 14th. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant may be quashed and set aside and the appeal be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned APP has strongly opposed the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the present appellant and has submitted that the trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material, in the form of oral and documentary evidence, produced before it and hence, no interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned APP has further contended that the accused were arrested on 14th, but the panchnama could not have been prepared on 13th as the incident occurred on 13th after 2,30p.m., and therefore, panch witnesses suffering from loss of memory. The FSL report shows the blood stains of accused. The injuries were such which were possible by knife and therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge is just and proper and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Having considered minutely the evidence on record, oral as well as documentary evidence, which we have appreciated, re-appreciated and reconsidered in light of the latest decision of the Apex Court. From the evidence on record, the presence of present appellant-ori. Accused no. 1 is proved and this reasoning cannot be faulted. The recording of evidence of PW-2 Rameshbhai Ramabhai Ex. 24 as he was injured eye witness. As per the say of doctor, the witness has sustained injury and, therefore, his presence was natural just being relative of the deceased and his evidence cannot be thrown out. There is no inconsistency and even if there is inconsistency, they are minor in nature. The injuries as per the PM report, is by knife which has been recovered from the appellant-ori. Accused no. 1. We are unable to persuade ourselves that the case would fall under section 304 Part-I IPC and hence, the Criminal Appeal No. 1160/2007 deserves to be dismissed. 9. The injuries as per the PM report, is by knife which has been recovered from the appellant-ori. Accused no. 1. We are unable to persuade ourselves that the case would fall under section 304 Part-I IPC and hence, the Criminal Appeal No. 1160/2007 deserves to be dismissed. 9. We are in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and we are 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 and the appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 2007 requires to be dismissed. 10. So far as the appeal for enhancement of sentence as well as against the acquittal being Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2007 is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in (2006)6 SCC 39 , the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under: “54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below.” 11. Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following principles: “42. Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following principles: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 12. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 13. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. 13. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under: “16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterised as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.” 14. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 15. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 15. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 , wherein, it is held as under: “… This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi v. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary ( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.” 16. In the case of Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh and Ors, reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para 10 and 11 has held as under: “10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so-called eye witnesses stated that the deceased died because his anke was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition. 11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence. 17. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookiah and Anr. v. State, rep. By the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 , the Apex Court in para-4 has held as under: “4. 17. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookiah and Anr. v. State, rep. By the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 , the Apex Court in para-4 has held as under: “4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges levelled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasised that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyse the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the Court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against the acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ] 18. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. 19. It is contended by the learned APP Ms. Shah that the trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the present respondents as their presence is found at the place of offence. She has contended that they had assembled there only with a view to do away with both the deceased. 19. It is contended by the learned APP Ms. Shah that the trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the present respondents as their presence is found at the place of offence. She has contended that they had assembled there only with a view to do away with both the deceased. The injuries were such and therefore, the finding of fact by the learned trial Judge that the present respondents have only committed the offence under section 114 & 115 of IPC, is erroneous and perverse and they should have been convicted under section 302 of IPC. 20. We have gone through the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. We have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State. The learned trial Judge has categorically held that they were present and therefore, they were arraigned with the aid of section 302 IPC, and therefore, no fault can be found with that and they cannot be punished under section 302 IPC. No error in the said decision is pointed out by the learned APP and we are convinced that the sentence awarded under section 114 and 115 of IPC is just and proper. There was no overt act on the part of the respondents and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any common object to do away with the deceased and, therefore, no case is made out for enhancement of sentence and the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge cannot be interfered with. The trial court while considering the oral as well as documentary evidence has clearly observed that there is no any evidence to convict the respondents. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Even in the present appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial Court. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 21. Ms. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Even in the present appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial Court. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 21. Ms. CM Shah learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record. 22. This Court on 11.9.2013 has passed the following order: “These appeals are preferred by the State against original accused nos. 2 to 5 for enhancement of sentence and by original accused no. 1 against his conviction. On 28.6.2013, the following order was passed: “While called out ld. Advocate Ms. Archana Sagar is absent. The appeal is adjourned for 14 times. This Court also sufficiently accommodated the ld. Advocate on 3.4.13, and again 2.5.13. The appellants are in jail. In the interest of justice, the office/Legal Aid may appoint somebody else on or before the next date. S.O. to 15.7.2013.” Prima facie, the original accused are required to be informed that the matter is on the Board. Therefore, the office is directed to inform respondent nos. 1 to 4 (Original accused Nos. 2 to 5) in Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 2007 filed by the State and the appellant (original accused No. 1) in Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 2007 stating that now the matter will be taken, after admission, on 3.10.2013. If they want to engage any advocate, they will engage advocate on or before 25.9.2013 and if no arrangement is made to engage advocate by 25.9.2013, the appeal preferred by the State is required to be viewed seriously in view of the fact that original accused Nos. 2 to 5 have not preferred any appeal against the order of conviction of the trial Court. Additionally, an attempt will also be made by the concerned local police station to inform all the 4 respondents (original accused no. 2 to 5) in State appeal that they are required to remain present before this Court on 3.10.2013. 2 to 5 have not preferred any appeal against the order of conviction of the trial Court. Additionally, an attempt will also be made by the concerned local police station to inform all the 4 respondents (original accused no. 2 to 5) in State appeal that they are required to remain present before this Court on 3.10.2013. Intimation of this order will be given to the concerned jail authority by the Registry and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Office is also directed to enquire whether the appeal preferred by co-accused Kantaben is pending or not.” This Court on 3.10.2013, has passed the following order: “Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court on 11.9.2013, accused no. 1 is present before this Court. Original accused No. 2 Kantaben is not in a position to attend the Court due to ill health. Original accused no. 3 Hasiben and original accused no. 4 Hanubhai are present. Original accused no. 5 is not present before this Court. Original accused no. 3 and 4 have stated that they are not in a position to afford lawyer. Therefore, they have requested to provide them legal aid. Accused No. 1 desires to engage private lawyer. Therefore, he requests for time. In the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned to 14.10.2013. It is made clear that original accused no. 5 (respondent no. 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 2007) shall remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, Mr. Barot learned advocate appointed by the Legal Aid, will try to convey the accused the consequences of the judgment of the trial Court.” 23. As far as allegations against Kantaben, Hasiben and Munno @ Manish are concerned, who have been awarded punishment for two years under section 302 IPC. It appears that there is a mistake in the nomenclature of the convicting sentence because the learned Judge of this cadre cannot commit such mistake prima-facie, as he would be aware that sentence under section 302 IPC has to be life but it appears that he has convicted the accused only for the purpose of adding, and therefore, we hold that the order does not suffer from any vice or perversity. The re-appreciation of this evidence also shows that there is no overt-act as far as other accused are concerned and their punishment with the aid of section 114 and 115 IPC require to be sustained. Acquittal under section 143, 147,148,149, 34, 323 and 506(2) of IPC is just and proper as there was no common intention nor was there any predetermination of mind to do away with the deceased or inflicting the injuries on the witnesses. 24. In the above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in convicting and the respondent under section 114 and 115 of IPC. We find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence, the appeal for enhancement of sentence and against the acquittal being Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2007 requires to be dismissed. 25. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 2007 is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8.5.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.9, Gondal, camp at Upleta in Sessions Case No. 58/2005, is confirmed. Fine is maintained, but default sentence is reduced to three months instead of one year. Rest of the impugned judgment and order is confirmed. However, considering the age and conduct of the appellant-accused, we hold that the life would not mean till the last breath and his case may be considered by the State Government for premature release after he serve appropriate custodial sentence and he shall be entitled to remission as admissible. 26. Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2007 for enhancement of sentence is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8.5.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.9, Gondal, camp at Upleta in Sessions Case No. 58/2005 is confirmed. Bail and bail bonds of respondents no. 3 and 4 are discharged and bail and bail bonds of respondents no. 1 and 2 are cancelled. 27. The respondents no. 1 - Kantaben w/o Bhana Pancha & respondent no. 2 Hasiben w/o. Hanu Panchabhai - ori. Accused no. Bail and bail bonds of respondents no. 3 and 4 are discharged and bail and bail bonds of respondents no. 1 and 2 are cancelled. 27. The respondents no. 1 - Kantaben w/o Bhana Pancha & respondent no. 2 Hasiben w/o. Hanu Panchabhai - ori. Accused no. 2 & 3 are directed to surrender before the Jail Authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order to serve remaining sentence, failing which, the concerned Sessions Court shall issue non-bailable warrant to effect the arrest of the respondents-ori. Accused no. 2 & 3. However, respondents no. 1 & 2 shall be entitled to set-off and remission. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Appeal dismissed.