Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 377 (GUJ)

Hasmukhbhai Gopalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2016-02-17

A.G.URAIZEE

body2016
ORDER A.G URAIZEE, J.:— The applicant has preferred the present revision application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) to challenge the order dated 10th March, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad below application Exhibit 22 in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2010 whereby the application for discharge under section 227 of the Code came to be rejected. 2. Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the bare reading of the statement of Hiteshbhai Koli, who is the son of the Ishwarbhai Laxmanbhai in conjunction with the post mortem notes makes it manifestly clear that there was no intention on the part of the applicant to cause death of the deceased - Ishwarbhai Laxmanbhai. He has further submitted that the post mortem notes does not mention about any external marks of injuries and therefore there is no evidence for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In his submission, at the most, the offence would fall under section 304 Part II of IPC. Hence, he submits that the revision application requires consideration. 3. Mr. N.J Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that at this stage the defence of the applicant is not relevant. In his submission the intensity of the kick and fist blows given to the applicant was so severe that the internal vital organs viz. spleen and liver were ruptured resulting in death of the deceased. Hence, he submits that there is no merit in the revision application. 4. It is a trite law that at the stage of framing of the charge defence of the accused is not relevant. The only contention raised by the learned advocate for the applicant is that the applicant has given kick and fist blows to the deceased. Hence, he submits that there is no merit in the revision application. 4. It is a trite law that at the stage of framing of the charge defence of the accused is not relevant. The only contention raised by the learned advocate for the applicant is that the applicant has given kick and fist blows to the deceased. These blows have not caused any internal injury to the deceased and therefore, the knowledge that the blows inflicted by the applicant would result into the death of the deceased cannot be attributed to the applicant cannot be considered at this stage, because, prima facie, at this stage it reveals that on the day of the incident the applicant and other three persons came and the applicant picked up a quarrel with the deceased with regard to the land dispute and gave kick and fist blows to him on his chest, face and stomach. The result of these kicks and fist blows is reflected in the post mortem notes, which shows that the death had occurred due to repeated blows inflicted on the vital organs i.e spleen and liver. In my opinion, at the stage of framing of the charge, the defence of the accused is not relevant and whether he had an intention to cause death of the deceased can only be examined after the evidence is recorded in the trial. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the revision application lacks merits and does not require any consideration. The same is, therefore, is dismissed at the threshold in limine.