Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 845 (GUJ)

Ramanbhai Dhulabhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat

2016-04-18

A.J.SHASTRI, M.R.SHAH

body2016
JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As all these appeals are interconnected and as such arise out of the same incident, all these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30/11/2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhara in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013, by which the learned trial court has convicted the respondent herein - original accused No. 2 - Ramanbhai Dhudabhai Rathod for the offences punishable under section 307read with section 120B of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 6 months, the original accused No. 2 - Ramanbhai Dhudabhai Rathod has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1708 of 2013. 2.01. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30/11/2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhara in Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012, by which the learned trial court has convicted the respondent herein - original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai Motibhai Patel for the offences punishable under section 307 read with section 120B of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 6 months, the original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai Motibhai Patel has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1709 of 2013. 2.02. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and orders of conviction and sentence dated 30/11/2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhara in Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012 and Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013, original complainant has preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 73 and 74 of 2014 for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial court while convicting the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 307 read with section 120B of IPC. 3. 73 and 74 of 2014 for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial court while convicting the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 307 read with section 120B of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under:- That one Fatesinh lodged F.I.R. with Halol Police Station against the accused being CR No. 1-162 of 2012 for the offences punishable under sections 307read with section 120B of IPC alleging inter-alia that on 23/7/2012 accused persons more particularly original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai Motibhai Patel at the instigation of the original accused No. 2 - Ramanbhai Dhudabhai Rathod, intentionally collided his motorcar with the motorcycle of the complainant from behind, due to which the complainant fell down and sustained serious injuries. It was alleged that the intention of the accused person was to kill the complainant. 3.01. The aforesaid F.I.R. of the injured Fatesinh Vajesinh Rathod was taken down by the Police Inspector, Halol Police Station, Mr. B.K. Vanar - P.W. No. 13 in Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012 at Chhaya Hospital, Halol, while the injured witness Fatesinh Rathod and the injured original complainant Fatesinh Rathod were taking treatment. He recorded statement of the concerned witnesses; he also prepared : panchnama of clothes of the injured Fatesinh, panchnama of the place of incident, panchnama of Hero Honda Motorcycle No. GJ-17-AA-3547; he also seized the car involved in the accident, which at the time of accident was being driven by the original accused No. 1 Vashrambhai. One N.C. complaint given by the original accused No. 1 against the son of the complainant and other persons (Ex. 52) was recorded by him. He arrested the original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai at about 8.00 PM (as per the arrest panchnama). 3.02. At this stage it is required to be noted that according to the complainant, the incident occurred on 23/7/2012 at about 8.30 AM in the morning and the Car was seized by the I.O. at about 9.00 PM on 23/7/2012 and as per the arrest panchnama, P.I. Vanat, arrested the accused No. 1 Vashrambhai at about 8.00 PM on 23/7/2012. 3.03. It appears that thereafter the I.O. sent report to the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Halol on 17/8/2012 to add offence under section 120B of IPC. 3.04. 3.03. It appears that thereafter the I.O. sent report to the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Halol on 17/8/2012 to add offence under section 120B of IPC. 3.04. Thereafter, after conclusion of the investigation, Jitendrakumar Kanubha, P.I. of Halol Police Station filed chargesheet against original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai in the court of learned JMFC, Halol. 3.05. As the case was exclusively triable by the learned court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate, Halol, committed the case to the Sessions Court, Panchmahals at Godhara and the case was transferred to the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhara which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012. 3.06. That the learned trial court framed Charge against the original accused No. 1-Vashrambhai Motibhai Patel at Ex. 6 in Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012 on 17/11/2013 for the offences punishable under section 307 read with section 120B of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, he came to be tried by the learned trial court for the aforesaid offences. 3.07. It appears that after the charge was framed against the original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai, original accused No. 2 - Ramanbhai Dhudabhai Rathod came to be arrested by the investigating officer on 16/2/2013 by the investigating officer Jitendrakumar Kanubhai Patel (PW No. 15 in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013) on 17/2/2013. Therefore, supplementary chargesheet came to be filed against the original accused No. 2 - Ramanbhai by the investigating officer Jitendrakumar Kanubhai Patel for the offences punishable under section 307 read with section 120 of IPC. 3.08. As the case was exclusively triable by the learned Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Halol committed the case to the learned Sessions Court Panchmahals at Godhara which was transferred to the court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhara, which was separately numbered as Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013. That the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the original accused No. 2 Ramanbhai on 14/6/2013 for the offences punishable under sections 307, 120B read with section 114 of IPC. The said accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, he came to be tried by the learned trial court for the aforesaid offences. 3.09. It emerges from the record that the learned Public Prosecutor submitted one application at Ex. The said accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, he came to be tried by the learned trial court for the aforesaid offences. 3.09. It emerges from the record that the learned Public Prosecutor submitted one application at Ex. 5 in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013 dated 26/6/2013 requesting to consolidate both the cases i.e. Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012 and Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013 to avoid duplication of the evidence, contradictory evidence and conflicting orders. However, the said application was objected by the original accused in Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012 - Vashrambhai on the ground that the trial in Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012 has already begun and if the trial of Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012 is consolidated with Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013, the same may cause delay. 3.10. That by order dated 16/7/2013 the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhara rejected the aforesaid application. That is why trial in Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012 and trial in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013 proceeded separately and the learned trial court recorded evidence in both the aforesaid cases separately though both the Sessions Cases were arising out of the same F.I.R. and with respect to the same incident. The learned Judge ought to have allowed application Ex. 5 in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013 and ought to have either clubbed and/or consolidated both the Sessions Cases and ought to have proceeded further with the trial in both the cases together and ought to have recorded common evidence in both the cases. However, unfortunately, the learned Judge rejected the application Ex. 5 and that is why there are separate recording of the evidences in both the cases. 4. Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012: 4.01. To prove the case against the original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai, prosecution examined the following witnesses: Oral Evidence: Sr. No. Ex. No. Name of the Prosecution witnesses 1 14 Raghuvirsinh Chhatrasinh Cjhauhan 2 24 Salimbhai Sikandarbhai Malek 3 32 Fatesinh Vajesinh Rathod 4 34 Dr. Menon Dushant Chhaya 5 40 Ravindra Ganpatbhai Parmar 6 42 Upendra Amarsinh Rathod 7 43 Harishbhai Fatesinh Rathod 8 44 Jayantibhai Chandulal Parmar 9 45 Mangalsinh Ajabsinh Parmar 10 48 Natvarsinh Laxmansinh Rathod 11 49 Shabbirali Habib Sunsara 12 50 Bavjibhai Koyjibhai Parmar 13 54 Bhagvatsinh Keshubha Vanar 14 57 Jitendrakumar Kanubhai Patel 4.02. Menon Dushant Chhaya 5 40 Ravindra Ganpatbhai Parmar 6 42 Upendra Amarsinh Rathod 7 43 Harishbhai Fatesinh Rathod 8 44 Jayantibhai Chandulal Parmar 9 45 Mangalsinh Ajabsinh Parmar 10 48 Natvarsinh Laxmansinh Rathod 11 49 Shabbirali Habib Sunsara 12 50 Bavjibhai Koyjibhai Parmar 13 54 Bhagvatsinh Keshubha Vanar 14 57 Jitendrakumar Kanubhai Patel 4.02. Through the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution brought on record the following documentary evidences: Documentary Evidence: Sr. No. Ex. No. Particulars 1 15 Panchnam of the recovery clothes of injured 2 19 Panchnama of the place of incident 3 25 Panchnama of arrest accused Vashrambhai 4 26 Panchnama of recovery of Ecco Car 5 52 F.I.R. 6 55 Primary Report of the FSL regarding Mobile 7 56 Report regarding addition of the offence 8 59 Ravangi North and Certificate of jurisdiction 9 61 Report of the FSL 10 62 Serology Report 4.03. After closing pursis was submitted by the prosecution at Ex. 63, Further Statement of the original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai came to be recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said accused denied having committed any offence and stated that a false case has been filed against him. 4.04. At the conclusion of the trial, by the impugned judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012, the learned trial court has held the original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 2000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 6 months. 4.05. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, the original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai Motibhai Patel has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1709 of 2013. 5. Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013: 5.01. As the accused Ramanbhai pleaded not guilty, he came to be tried for the offence punishable under sections 307, 120B and 114 of IPC. 5.02. To prove the case against the said accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: Oral Evidence Sr. No. Ex.No. Name of the Prosecution witnesses 1 13 Fatesinh Vajesinh Rathod 2 15 Raghuvirsinh Chhatrasinh Cjhauhan 3 18 Tapankumar Hasmukhbhai Thakkar 4 22 Natvarsinh Laxmansinh Rathod 5 23 Dr. 5.02. To prove the case against the said accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: Oral Evidence Sr. No. Ex.No. Name of the Prosecution witnesses 1 13 Fatesinh Vajesinh Rathod 2 15 Raghuvirsinh Chhatrasinh Cjhauhan 3 18 Tapankumar Hasmukhbhai Thakkar 4 22 Natvarsinh Laxmansinh Rathod 5 23 Dr. Manan Dushant Chhaya 6 26 Shhabbirali habib sunsara 7 27 Ravindra Ganpatbhai Parmar 8 28 Upendrasinh Amarsinh Rathod 9 29 Hasanbhai Fatesinh Rathod 10 30 Jayantibhai Chandubhai Parmar 11 31 Mangalsinh Ajabsinh Parmar 12 32 Prabhatsinh Ramsinh Parmar 13 33 Bavjibhai Koyjibhai Parmar 14 36 Bhagvatsinh keshubhai Vanar 15 39 Jitendrakumar Kanubhai Patel 5.03. Through the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution brought on record the following documentary evidences; Documentary Evidence Sr. No. Ex. No. Name of the Prosecution witnesses 1 14 Copy of the FIR 2 16 Copy of the Panchnama of Seizure of clothes of the injured 3 17 True copy of the Panchnama of Muddamal 4 19 True Copy of the certificate of treatment 6 37 Report of the FSL regarding both the vehicle involved in the accident 7 38 Catalog 8 41 Ravangi Nondh and Certificate of jurisdiction 9 42 Report of the FSL 10 43 Report of Serology 5.04. After closing pursish submitted by the prosecution at Ex. 42, Further Statement of the said accused Ramanbhai was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he denied having committed any offence. 5.05. At the conclusion of the trial, by the impugned judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013, the learned trial court has held the original accused No. 2-Ramanbhai guilty for the offence under sections 307 and 120B of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 6 months. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the original accused No. 2 - Ramanbhai Dhudabhai Rathod has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1708 of 2013. 6. Criminal Appeal Nos. 73 & 74 of 2014: As stated hereinabove, being aggrieved and having not satisfied with the sentence imposed by the learned trial court, the original complainant has preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 73 & 74 of 2014 for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial court while convicting the original accused for the offences punishable under sections 307 read with section 120B of IPC. 73 & 74 of 2014 for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial court while convicting the original accused for the offences punishable under sections 307 read with section 120B of IPC. 6.01. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original accused and Mr. Rakesh Patel, earned APP has appeared on behalf of the State, in all these appeals and Mr. Rushabh R. Shah, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original complainant. 6.02. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record, the learned trial court has materially erred in holding the original accused guilty for the offences punishable under sections 307 and 120B of IPC. 6.03. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused has further submitted that as such the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt and by leading cogent evidence that there was any intention on the part of the originate accused Nos. 1 and 2 to cause death of the complainant Fatesinh while dashing his Car with the Hero Honda motorcycle which at the time of accident was being driven by the complainant Fatesinh. 6.04. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court has materially erred in relying upon the deposition of the original complainant Fatesinh. It is submitted that the deposition of the said witness is full of material contradictions. It is submitted that as such the original complainant has not stated correct facts before the Court in his deposition and therefore, he is not reliable and trustworthy and therefore, it will not be safe to convict the original accused relying upon the deposition of the original complainant Fatesinh. 6.05. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused has further submitted that though the original complainant and other witnesses have stated that original accused No. 1 Vashrambhai dashed his car behind the Hero Honda Motorcycle which at the time of accident was being driven by the original complainant, the same is not supported by Panchnama of the motorcycle of the complainant. It is submitted that there is no damage on the rear portion of the motorcycle. It is submitted that there is no damage on the rear portion of the motorcycle. It is submitted that neither number plate nor rear portion light of the motorcycle of the original complainant is found broken. 6.06. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused has further submitted that even the original complainant has stated in his deposition that the complainant was not given by him at Chhaya Hospital, however, P.I. Vanat has categorically stated in his deposition as well as in his cross-examination that he recorded the complaint given by the complainant at Chhaya Hospital. It is submitted that eve the original complainant has changed his stand from time to time. It is submitted that initially he stated that he did not give complaint at Chhaya Hospital, however, on the question asked by the Court, he stated that he gave complaint before the treatment was started. It is submitted that thereafter he has denied having given compliant at Chhaya Hospital. It is submitted that therefore, there are material contradictions in his deposition and therefore, the learned trial court ought not to have relied upon the deposition of the original complainant and ought not to have convicted the original accused relying upon the deposition of the original complainant - injured. 6.07. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused has further submitted that even there are material contradictions with respect to presence of the original accused No. 2 - Ramanbhai and even with respect to arrest of the arrest of the original accused No. 1 Vashrambhai. It is submitted that in the deposition the original complainant has stated that Vashrambhai was arrested on the spot when he was caught hold by other people, however, P.W. No. 11 - Mangalsinh Ajabsinh Parmar, who has been examined at Ex. 83 in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013 has clearly stated that Vashrambhai and Ramanbhai came to his place to return the Car at about 9.00 O'clock on 27/12/2012. It is further submitted that even PSO stated in his deposition that one PSI brought Vashrambhai to the Police Station, however, the aforesaid id denied by the P.I. Vanat. According to the I.O. - P.I. Mr. It is further submitted that even PSO stated in his deposition that one PSI brought Vashrambhai to the Police Station, however, the aforesaid id denied by the P.I. Vanat. According to the I.O. - P.I. Mr. Vanat, so stated in his cross examination that Vashrambhai was brought to the police station in the noon by some other persons (public), however, as per the arrest panchnama, he is shown to have arrested at 8.00 PM at night. Thus, there are material contradictions with respect to even arrest of the original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai. 6.08. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused has further submitted that even if it is believed that the accidentally car which at the time of accident was being driven by the original accused No. 1 dashed with the motorcycle driven by the original complainant, in that case also, considering the evidence on record, at the most it can be said that it was an vehicular accident only and it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the accused to cause death of the deceased i.e. for the offence under section 307 of IPC. 6.09. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused has further submitted that in fact N.C. complaint was given by the original accused No. 1 (Ex. 52) in Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012 in which the original accused No. 1 has stated that after the accident had taken place, the original accused No. 1 went to his factory and after the complainant was taken to the hospital, the son of the complainant had come to the place of the original accused No. 1 and he took him to the hospital and he abused him and some persons from the public had beaten him. It is submitted that therefore, from the evidence on record it cannot be said that the accused has committed offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. It is submitted that therefore, from the evidence on record it cannot be said that the accused has committed offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. It is submitted that therefore, when at the most it can be said that car which was being driven by the original accused No. 1 dashed accidentally with the motorcycle of the complainant and by no stretch of imagination it cannot be said there was any intention on the part of the accused to cause death of the complainant by running over the car on the motorcycle of the complainant and/or on the complainant. It is submitted that therefore, the learned trial court has committed a grave error in holding both the original accused guilty for the offence punishable under sections 307 and 120B of IPC. By making above submissions, it is requested to allow Criminal Appeal Nos. 1708 and 1709 of 2013 and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court by which both the original accused are held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 307 and 120B of IPC. 6.10. So far as Criminal Appeal Nos. 73 & 74 of 2014 preferred by the original complainant for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial court while convicting the original accused for the offences punishable under sections 307 and 120B of IPC is concerned, it is submitted that as submitted hereinabove, the learned trial court has committed a grave error in convicting the original accused for the offences under sections 307 and 120B of IPC and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and therefore, the aforesaid appeals preferred by the original complainant for enhancement of the sentence are required to be dismissed. 6.11. In the alternative, it is submitted that in the fact and circumstances of the case, imposing the punishment of sentence of 5 years RI for the offence u/s. 307 of IPC cannot be said to be disproportionate, inadequate and/or not commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss Criminal Appeal Nos. 73 and 74 of 2014 preferred by the original complainant for enhancement. 7. Both the appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos. 1708 and 1709 of 2013 preferred by the original accused are vehemently opposed by Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 7.01. Mr. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss Criminal Appeal Nos. 73 and 74 of 2014 preferred by the original complainant for enhancement. 7. Both the appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos. 1708 and 1709 of 2013 preferred by the original accused are vehemently opposed by Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 7.01. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the original accused for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code. 7.02. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has further submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has been successful in proving the motive for the original accused No. 2 - Ramanbhai to commit the offences for which he has been convicted. 7.03. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has further submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has been successful in proving the presence of both the accused at the time of commission of the offence. 7.04. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has further submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has been successful in proving that the original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai was driving the car which dashed from behind Hero Honda Motorcycle which was driven by the original complainant. It is submitted that even the prosecution has been successful in proving the presence of the original accused No. 2 - Ramanbhai in the car which was driven by the original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai, which dashed with the motorcycle of the complainant and that he was instigating the original accused No. 1 to kill the original complainant. 7.05. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has further submitted that therefore, in the present case, the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the original accused. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the Criminal Appeal Nos. 1708 and 1709 of 2013 preferred by the original accused challenging their conviction and confirmed the impugned judgment and order of conviction. 8. Mr. Rushabh Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant and in support of the Criminal Appeal Nos. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the Criminal Appeal Nos. 1708 and 1709 of 2013 preferred by the original accused challenging their conviction and confirmed the impugned judgment and order of conviction. 8. Mr. Rushabh Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant and in support of the Criminal Appeal Nos. 73 and 74 of 2014 preferred by the original complainant for enhancement of the sentence has vehemently submitted that once the learned trial court has rightly held both the original accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code. And prosecution has been successful in proving that the original accused No. 1 at the instigation of the original accused No. 2 deliberately dashed his car with the motorcycle driven by the original complainant and thereby tried to cause death of the original complainant and/or with an intention to cause death of the original complainant, the learned trial court has materially erred in imposing RI for 5 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 6 months only. It is submitted that in the present case and the findings recorded by the learned trial court holding the original accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section120B of Indian Penal Code, the learned trial court ought to have awarded maximum punishment provided under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. By making above submissions it is requested to allow Criminal Appeal Nos. 73 and 74 of 2014 preferred by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence. 9. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and orders of conviction passed by the learned trial court. We have also considered the findings recorded by the learned trial court while convicting the original accused. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 9.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and orders passed in respective Sessions Cases, the learned trial court has convicted the original accused for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 9.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and orders passed in respective Sessions Cases, the learned trial court has convicted the original accused for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such, both the Sessions Cases arise out of common First Information Report and with respect to the same incident. However, out of two accused, one accused was not arrested and therefore, separate chargesheet came to be filed and therefore, two different Sessions Cases were numbered. The evidence was also common. Therefore, as such the learned trial court ought to have either consolidated both the cases and ought to have conducted trial together or ought to have heard both the Sessions Cases together and ought to have recorded common evidence so as to avoid separate recording of the evidence and/or conflicting recording of the evidence. However, unfortunately as in the present case though the prosecution submitted application to consolidate both the Sessions Cases, the learned trial court rejected the same on the objections raised by one accused, though the only few witnesses were examined in one Sessions Case. Normally when there are two or more Sessions Cases out of the same First Information Report, due to filing of the separate cases and if the trial in respective cases shall not be proceeded much, it is always desirable that all the Sessions Cases are consolidated and all cases are tried together and common evidence is led which will avoid conflicting decisions, and even it can save time of the witnesses as well as even the Court. 9.02. Now, so far as challenge to the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned trial court is concerned, on appreciation of entire evidence on record, more particularly, prosecution witnesses, the accident between the Car, which at the time of incident was being driven by the original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai and Hero Honda Motorcycle, which at the time of accident was being driven by the original complainant - Fatesinh, cannot be disputed. Even the original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai himself gave one N.C. Complaint, produced at Ex. 52. Thus, the accident is not in dispute. Even the original accused No. 1 - Vashrambhai himself gave one N.C. Complaint, produced at Ex. 52. Thus, the accident is not in dispute. However, what is required to be considered is whether the original accused can be said to have committed offences punishable under section 307 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code, as held by the learned trial court? 9.03. On re-appreciating the entire evidence on record more particularly deposition of the P.W. No. 3 - original complainant Fatesinh Vajesinh Rathod and PSO who recorded First Information Report and investigating officer P.W. No. 13-Bhagvatsinh Keshubha Vanar, we are of the opinion that there are material contradictions in the deposition of the original complainant - P.W. No. 3. There are material contradictions with respect to time of the arrest of the original accused No. 1-Vashrambhai. On re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the original complainant has tried to convert an vehicular accident into an offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. From the Panchnama of the Motorcycle of the original complainant and the place of incident, it appears that neither any back-light nor even number plate of the Hero Honda motorcycle of the original complainant was found broken. It was the case on behalf of the prosecution and the original complainant that when the accused saw the original complainant, original accused No. 2 Ramanbhai told the original accused No. 1 Vashrambhai that the original complainant should be killed today and therefore, the original complainant tried to run away on his motorcycle from that place and at that time original accused No. 1 Vashrambhai at the instigation of the original accused No. 2-Ramanbhai deliberately dashed his car with the motorcycle of the original complainant, due to which the original complainant fell down. However, as observed hereinabove, rear portion of the motorcycle of the original complainant was not at all damaged. Therefore, the case on behalf of the prosecution that the original accused No. 1 deliberately dashed his car from backside of the Motorcycle of the original complainant is not established and proved. It is also required to be noted that even the original complainant in his cross-examination has specifically admitted that the car dashed with the motorcycle but no attempt was made to run over. It is also required to be noted that even the original complainant in his cross-examination has specifically admitted that the car dashed with the motorcycle but no attempt was made to run over. It is required to be noted that after the original complainant sustained the injury in the accident, he was taken to first hospital of Dr. Soni where he was primarily treated and thereafter he was taken to the hospital of Dr. Chhaya. A suggestion was made on behalf of the defence that the complainant gave history before the Dr. Soni with respect to the accident, neither statement of Dr. Soni has been recorded nor he has been examined. Even when the history was given by the original complainant to Dr. Chhaya, he has stated that he has sustained injury in the accident. That thereafter, First Information Report has been lodged deliberately after more than 5 hours. In the meantime and it emerges from the N.C. Complaint given by the original accused No. 1 (Ex. 52) that the son of the complainant, having known about the accident and his father being injured in the accident, had gone to the factory of the Vashrambhai - original accused No. 1 and he brought Vashrambhai to the hospital of Dr. Chhaya, where his farther was taking treatment, where some unknown persons beaten him and caused injury to the original accused No. 1, as come on record in the deposition of the PSO and PSI. The investigating officer - PSI has categorically stated that accused No. 1 Vashrambhai was brought by public to the police station in the noon. However, in the arrest panchnama, the arrest of the original accused No. 1-Vashrambhai is shown at 8.00 PM. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the accused to kill the original complainant by running over the car on the motorcycle and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused have committed any offence punishable under section 307 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code, as held by the learned trial court. As observed hereinabove, the original complainant has tried to convert the vehicular accident into a case for the offence under section 307 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code. 9.04. As observed hereinabove, the original complainant has tried to convert the vehicular accident into a case for the offence under section 307 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code. 9.04. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned trial court convicting the original accused for the offences punishable under section 307 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1708 and 1709 of 2013 are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhara in Sessions Case No. 194 of 2012 as well as in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013, dated 30/11/2013 are hereby quashed and set aside and both the accused are hereby acquitted for offences/charges punishable under section 307 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code for which they were tried. It is reported that both the accused are on bail. Therefore, on their conviction being set aside, their Bail Bonds stand cancelled. In view of allowing Criminal Appeal Nos. 1708 and 1709 of 2013 and quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and orders of convictions, Criminal Appeal Nos. 73 and 74 of 2014 preferred by the original complainant for enhancement of the sentence do not survive and they deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1708 and 1709 of 2013 are allowed and Criminal Appeal Nos. 73 and 74 of 2014 are dismissed. Registry is directed to return R & P of the case to the learned trial court forthwith.