JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2009 is concerned, the same has been preferred by the appellant-State under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for enhancing the sentence imposed upon the respondent vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Main Court), Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2008. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the learned Sessions Judge found the respondent-accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 506(2) and 309 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the BP Act, and consequently, sentenced him as under: Section under IPC Imprisonment Fine (Amount) In default of payment of fine 307 RI for three years 2000.00 RI for one month 452 RI for one year 2000.00 RI for fifteen days 506(2) RI for six months 100.00 SI for five days All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2009 is concerned, the same has been preferred by the appellant-accused under section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against conviction for the offence under sections 307, 309, 452 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the BP Act vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Main Court), Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2008. 3. As both these appeals arise out of the selfsame judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, the same are heard and decided together by this common judgment. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2009 and respondent of Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2009 is referred to as the accused as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 4. The broad facts of the case are as under. 4.1 It is the case of the prosecution that complainant-Sumitraben, was residing at Dalbhai Muvadi, village Kadjodara along with his family and serving as teacher and has a daughter viz., Nikita aged about 18 years. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19/04/2008 at about 5:00 O'clock in the evening the complainant came to her home and at that time her daughter was also present. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19/04/2008 at about 5:00 O'clock in the evening the complainant came to her home and at that time her daughter was also present. That between 6:00 and 6:15 p.m. Dinesh-son of their neighbour-Ramanbhai Mangalbhai Prajapati came to their house and told Nikita that he loves her and cannot live without her and why did she decide to get married to someone else without asking him and why did she not refuse to marry the other person and in furtherance started to beat her with a gupti. That the accused had given blows of gupti on wrist of the left hand, stomach and on the backside of the daughter of the complainant and sustained her injures with fist blows. That the daughter of the complainant was bleeding, however the complainant intervened and rescued her from further beating. That when the complainant started shouting, the accused also caused himself injuries with the gupti. That the accused had given threat to the daughter of the complainant that as he loves her, he will kill her and he will also die and told her to ask her parents to break their engagement otherwise he will also kill her parents and the accused thereafter left the place. It is alleged that accused person was harassing the daughter of the complainant since last twelve months and the accused was having a love affair with the daughter of complainant and as she was engaged to someone else, he got excited, went to house of the complainant and sustained serious injuries to the daughter of the complainant with iron gupti and thereby made attempt to commit murder of the daughter of the complainant and hence, the complaint came to be lodged. 4.2 On the basis of complaint, investigation was carried out. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of various witnesses, seized the muddamal weapon under the panchnama and arrested the accused. 4.3 On conclusion of the investigation and on the basis of the material collected against the accused, since the Investigating Officer found a prima-facie case against the accused, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Competent Court for the alleged offences. 4.3 On conclusion of the investigation and on the basis of the material collected against the accused, since the Investigating Officer found a prima-facie case against the accused, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Competent Court for the alleged offences. 4.4 Since the case registered against the respondent-accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate was pleased to commit the case to the Court of Sessions, Gandhinagar which came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 40 of 2008. 4.5 On committal, the case was transferred and placed for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar who had initially framed charge against the accused for the offences under Sections 307, 309, 452, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the BP Act. The charge was read over and explained to him and the plea of the accused came to be recorded. The accused, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4.6 In order to bring home the charge levelled against the accused person, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and relied upon their oral testimony and the 14 documentary evidences in support of their case, which are as follow: WITNESSES No. Name Exhibit 1. Dilipsinh Kalyansinh Jhala 8 2. Ranjitsinh Baldevsinh Jhala 10 3. Dr. Hetal Chetan Badheka 12 4. Sumitraben Hashmukhlal Prajapati-complainant 16 5. Upendrakumar Ramanlal Jayswal 18 6. Nikitaben Hashmukhbhai Prajapati 21 7. Amrutbhai Punjabhai Patel 24 8. Babulal Kuberbhai 27 9. Dalpansinh Ajabsinh Jhala 30 10. Krishnaba Rajendrasinh 31 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S. No. Description of the Document Exhibit 1 Complaint of the complainant Sumitraben 17 2 Abstract of Janva Jog Entry 3 Panchnama of the scene of offence 9 4 Panchnama of the body condition of the accused 11 5 Panchnama of the recovery of the weapon gupti 19 6 Certificate of treatment of the accused 14 7 Certificate of treatment of the victim Nikita 15 8 Dispatch entry 36 9 Receipt regarding receiving muddamal 37 10 Letter of FSL to PI 38 11 Analysis report of FSL 39 12 Serological report of FSL 40 13 Notification regarding weapon prohibition 41 14 Map of scene of offence 33 5. At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and considering the arguments canvassed on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the trial court convicted the respondent-accused of Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2009 and appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 309, 452, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the BP Act vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2008 passed in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2008. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant-State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2009 and the respondent has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2009 before this Court. 7. Learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi appearing for the appellant State has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is unduly lenient and grossly inadequate as the learned trial Judge has not given any special reason for inflicting a sentence, which is less than what is provided under the Code. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi has submitted that learned trial Judge ought to have inflicted the maximum sentence provided under Sections 307, 452, 506(2) and 309 of the Indian Penal Code so that there may be deterrence effect on the society to curb such heinous crime of attempt to murder. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi has further submitted that the learned trial Judge has erroneously considered the family background of the accused while awarding the sentence in such a serious offence. That learned trial Judge ought to have appreciated the medical evidence that the injuries were caused on the body of the injured with sharp edged weapon-muddamal article and hence, there is a clear-cut evidence to convict the accused with the offence and therefore the learned Judge ought to have imposed more harsh punishment of sentence, however the learned trial Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter and has imposed lesser punishment than the punishment prescribed under the law. That learned trial Judge ought to have appreciated that the injuries caused by the accused person are clearly indicative of the fact that there is clearcut common intention of the accused to cause death of the injured and the injuries found on body of the injured are also sufficient to indicate from the medical evidence that these injuries are sufficient to cause death and are caused with the muddamal weapon and the act of attempt to murder was proved from the produced set of evidence against the original accused. Lastly, Mr. Dabhi has requested this Court to allow the appeal for enhancement of sentence. 8. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2009 is concerned, learned advocate Mr. P.J. Yagnik appearing for the original accused has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is unjust, illegal and against the record and proceedings of the case. Learned advocate Mr. Yagnik for the original accused has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the State by submitting that the appeal filed by the State is not required to be entertained and has submitted that at the time of incident the accused was a young boy madly in love with the daughter of the complainant and as she was engaged to someone else without his knowledge, he became very upset and has caused the offence. That he also was depressed and not in a fit state of mind and caused injuries to himself with the intention of committing suicide. Learned advocate has urged this Court to consider the circumstances sympathetically and sentence the accused to the period already undergone. 9. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and also threadbare examined the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment of the learned trial court. 10. The prosecution has examined PW-1 Dilipsinh Kalyansinh Zala at exhibit 8 and PW-2 Ranjitsinh Baldevsinh Zala at exhibit 10 and the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at exhibit 9. 10.1 PW-3 Dr. Hetal Chetan Badheka has been examined at exhibit 12 and the witness is the medical officer who has examined the accused on 19.04.2008 while she was on duty at Dehgam General Hospital. 10.1 PW-3 Dr. Hetal Chetan Badheka has been examined at exhibit 12 and the witness is the medical officer who has examined the accused on 19.04.2008 while she was on duty at Dehgam General Hospital. The witness has stated that she had examined the accused and he had sustained the following injuries on his body: 1. Sutured wound of 1 cm in size 5 cm above umbilica 2. Sutured 1 cm would 7 cm lated to 1st would lt side 3. Sutured 1 cm wound zem below L4 cm lated to umbical lt side 4. 1 cm sutured wound 7 cm later to midline 5. 1 cm sutured wound over lt side lateral wall of chest 1 cm below to 12th rib. The witness has also examined injured Nikita Hasmukhbhai Prajapati and has produced the injury certificate of the accused at exhibit 14 and the injury certificate of Nikita Prajapati at exhibit 15. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that the accused was brought earlier than the injured witness for treatment, and in both the injury certificates, the name of the person who had assaulted them is not mentioned. She had primarily treated both the accused and injured Nikita in the examination in chief, the witness has not stated that the injuries sustained by injured witness Nikita were sufficient to cause her death. As per the case of the prosecution injured witness, Nikita was first taken to Government Hospital Dehgam for treatment and was thereafter taken to Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar, and from there was brought to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for treatment. The medical officer who has treated the injured Nikita and the accused at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad has been examined before the learned trial court, but the medical officer who treated the injured Nikita at Government Hospital, Dehgam and thereafter at Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar have not been examined before the learned trial court. Moreover, the prosecution has produced the Refer Chit of Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar of the accused at exhibit 19, but no medical officer of Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar has been examined by the prosecution. 10.2 The prosecution has examined PW-4 Sumitra Hashmukhlal Prajapati at exhibit 16 and the witness is the mother of the injured Nikita Hasmukhlal Prajapati, and she is an eye witness to the incident. 10.2 The prosecution has examined PW-4 Sumitra Hashmukhlal Prajapati at exhibit 16 and the witness is the mother of the injured Nikita Hasmukhlal Prajapati, and she is an eye witness to the incident. The witness has stated that on 19.04.2008 when she and her daughter Nikita were at home, the accused came to their house and told her daughter that he loved her and could not live without her and asked her why she got engaged to someone else, and she did not tell her parents about their love affair. That he took the gupti and injured her daughter and also himself, and as she shouted, the neighbours came and took Nikita for treatment to Dehgam and there after she was taken to Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar, and for further treatment to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The accused in her presence told her daughter that he loved her and thereafter started inflicting injuries and she had filed the complaint at Rakhial Police Station, which is produced at exhibit 17. The witness has also identified the weapon and the other Muddamal. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that the accused was a neighbour and residing in the same mohalla and they were of the same caste and also relatives. That prior to the incident, they had good relations and they would visit each other’s house, and she was aware that her daughter and the accused were in love relationship. That news of the love affair between her daughter, and the accused was known in the village. 10.3 The prosecution has examined PW-4 Upendrakumar Ramanbhai Jaiswal at exhibit 18 and PW-9 Dalpatsinh Ajabsinh Zala at exhibit 30, and both the witnesses are the witnesses of the discovery panchnama produced at exhibit 19 whereby the weapon gupti used in the offence has been recovered. Both the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and cross examined at length by the learned APP. 10.4 The prosecution has examined the injured witness Nikita Hashmukhbhai Prajapati at exhibit 21, and the witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that the accused came to her house in the evening and told her that he loved her and could not live without her, and why did she get engaged without his consent? 10.4 The prosecution has examined the injured witness Nikita Hashmukhbhai Prajapati at exhibit 21, and the witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that the accused came to her house in the evening and told her that he loved her and could not live without her, and why did she get engaged without his consent? The accused also told her why she did not tell her parents about their relationship and took the gupti and assaulted her and thereafter assaulted himself. That she was taken to the Government Hospital, Dehgam and thereafter to Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar and was for taken for further treatment to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The witness has identified the gupti and the other Muddamal, including the clothes that she had worn at the time of the incident. During the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the accused is residing in the same Mohalla and is a family relative. The witness has stated that at the time of the incident, her mother was present and the witness was shown 17 letters and 14 photographs of her and the accused, but she has denied that she is in the photographs. 10.5 The prosecution has examined PW-7 Amrutbhai Punjabhai Patel at exhibit 24 and the witnesses is the PSO who has recorded the vardhi received from Civil Hospital in the Station Diary at entry No. 34/2008 which is produced at exhibit 25. The prosecution has examined PW-8 Babulal Kuberbhai at exhibit 27 and the witness is the PSO who has registered the complaint under sections 307 452, 506(2) of the IPC and section 135 of the BP Act while he was on duty as the In Charge PSO at Rakhial Police Station. 10.6 The prosecution has examined the Investigating Officer, Krishnaba Rajendrasinh Dabhi at exhibit 31 and the witness is the police officer who has investigated the entire offence and filed the chargesheet before the learned Sessions Court. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that during investigation, it was found that there was a quarrel between the family of the accused and the complainant because of the love affair between the accused and the daughter of the complainant. 11. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that during investigation, it was found that there was a quarrel between the family of the accused and the complainant because of the love affair between the accused and the daughter of the complainant. 11. We have minutely dissected the entire evidence of the prosecution and find that the accused and the injured witness Nikita were in a love relationship for sometime, and the fact of the love relationship was known to the parents of Nikita and also the people in the village. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has found that there was a quarrel between the families of the accused and the complainant because of the love affair between the accused and the daughter of the complainant. At the time of the incident, it came to the knowledge of the accused that the parents of Nikita have got her engaged to some other person, and in emotional distress got into a fit of rage, went to the house of the complainant and assaulted Nikita the daughter of the complainant and also caused injuries to himself. In the entire evidence of the prosecution, the presence of the accused at the place of incident and the fact that the accused has caused the injuries to the injured Nikita and also to himself is proved beyond reasonable doubts. The incident has occurred in emotional distress and a fit of rage as the accused and the injured were in a love relationship, and she was engaged to someone else, even though they were of the same caste and the fact of their love affair was known to the parents and to everyone in the village. 12. Learned Advocate Mr. P.J. Yagnik for the accused submits that the incident has occurred on 19.04.2008 and at that time, the accused was a very young boy and more than 16 years have passed by after the incident. At the time of the incident the act has occurred as the accused due to his young age got carried away and emotionally distressed and went rushing to the house of the complainant. At the time of the incident the act has occurred as the accused due to his young age got carried away and emotionally distressed and went rushing to the house of the complainant. The accused has undergone a sufficient portion of the sentence and considering the fact that he was a young boy who was deeply in love and was mentally affected that the person whom he loved and whom he wanted to marry was getting married to someone else, even though the knowledge of their affair was known to the parents of the injured Nikita and everyone in the village and in a fit of rage the incident has occurred. Moreover, the accused has sufficiently repented for the hurried action taken by him, which has made him realise the wrong that he had done and has suffered a great deal, hence a lenient view may be taken and the accused maybe sentenced to the term of imprisonment already undergone. 13. Considering the evidence on record and the arguments of the learned advocate for the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2009, we find that at the time of the incident, the accused was in a tumultuous love relationship with injured Nikita and the news of her being engaged to some other person caused him a great emotional distress and because of the young age at the time of the incident, the disturbed psychological factors have contributed to the act and he had inflicted serious injuries on himself also, which show the distress that was caused to the accused, and hence we find it fit that the sentence of the accused be reduced to the period undergone. 14. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2009 is partly allowed, and the appellant is sentenced to the term which he has already undergone. Consequence, we do not find any merit in Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2009 and the same stands rejected. 15. Registry is directed to send the R&P to the concerned trial court forthwith.