Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1534 (GUJ)

Pravin Naranbhai Vala v. State of Gujarat

2017-09-04

P.P.BHATT

body2017
JUDGMENT : P.P. BHATT, J. 1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants original accused being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2014, whereby, the present appellants original accused held to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, the IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 05 years with fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment (SI) for 01 month. 2. Heard, the learned advocate for the appellants-original accused and Ms. Bhatt, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 3. At the threshold, the learned advocate for the appellants submitted that so far as conviction of the appellants - accused is concerned, he does not press the present appeal. However, so far as sentence imposed by the learned trial Court of RI for 05 years with fine of Rs. 500/- each is concerned, he submitted that so far as present appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they have undergone more than three and half years of imprisonment and thereby, have undergone more than half of the sentence imposed by the trial Court. It is also submitted that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are in jail whereas, the sentence of remaining two lady appellants has been suspended by order dated 15.07.2015 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13205 of 2015 and accordingly, they are on bail. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are in jail since their arrest in 2013 and have undergone the maximum sentence out of the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court. It is also submitted that the appellant Nos. 3 and 4 happen to be the wife of appellant Nos. 2 and 1, respectively. The appellants have children viz. the appellant No. 1 has two daughters, whereas, the appellant No. 2 has three daughters and two sons and thus, they have responsibilities towards their respective families. Besides, the appellants are poor agricultural labourers and their financial condition is also weak. It is submitted that due to such conviction and sentence, the children of the appellants have also suffered indirect punishment. Besides, the appellants are poor agricultural labourers and their financial condition is also weak. It is submitted that due to such conviction and sentence, the children of the appellants have also suffered indirect punishment. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the appellants and the complainant have arrived at a compromise way back and now, no grievance survives between the parties and harmony and peace prevail between them. To substantiate the aforesaid facts, the learned advocate for the appellants has also produced on record an affidavit filed by one Renukaben Gautam Babubhai and accordingly, he requested to take a lenient view in the matter and to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period the appellants have already undergone in jail. The learned advocate for the appellants has also apprised the Court, on instructions, that the appellants are ready and willing to pay the fine, that may be suitably increased by the Court. As against this, Ms. Bhatt, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, opposed the aforesaid request and submitted that in view of the judgment and order of the trial Court is after due appreciation of the evidence on record and for coming to such a conclusion since plausible reasons have been given and the sentence being in proportion to the offence in question, no interference is warranted and she requested to dismiss the present appeal. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, when the learned advocate for the appellants has not argued on merits and only requested to reduce the sentence to the period the appellants have already undergone in jail in view of the fact that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are in jail since their arrest viz. since 2013 and have undergone more than half of the sentence imposed by the trial Court, besides the fact that the appellants are poor and are the agricultural labourers and have children and have responsibilities towards their families, as is transpired from the aforesaid affidavit filed by the learned advocate for the appellants, without much delving into the matter, this Court is of the view that discretion is required to be exercised in the case on hand in the given circumstances and while upholding the conviction in the present case, the sentence imposed upon the appellants requires to be reduced to the period the appellants have already undergone in jail. However, at the same time, the fine imposed by the learned trial Court is required to be increased to Rs. 5,000/- each from that of Rs. 500/- each as is imposed by the trial Court, which shall be payable to the original complainant. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal succeeds in part. While upholding the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2014, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants original accused is reduced to the period they have already undergone in jail. However, the fine amount is increased to Rs. 5,000/- each instead of Rs. 500/- each as is imposed by the learned trial Judge, which shall be deposited before the trial Court concerned and the trial Court concerned shall, in turn, disburse the said amount to the original complainant on proper verification and following due procedure. It is clarified that the aforesaid order of reducing the sentence shall be subject to aforesaid payment of fine by each appellant accused. Registry to return the R&P, if received, to the trial Court.