Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1864 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Bhavesh Kanubhai Parmar

2024-10-08

VIMAL K.VYAS

body2024
JUDGMENT : Vimal K. Vyas, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant – State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) and is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No.154 of 2008. 2. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the trial court held the present respondents-accused guilty and convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently, sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. However, the trial court acquitted the present respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them under Sections 306, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 22.10.2005 at about 8:00 p.m. at Ranchhodji Pole, Manjalpur, Vadodara, the accused persons had abused the complainant by hurling filthy language and thereafter the accused no.1 Bhaveshbhai had inflicted stick blows on the eye of the complainant, whereas the accused no.2 had inflicted stick blows on the head of the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that since the incident had occurred on a public place, the complainant could not tolerate the insult and, therefore, he attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene and setting himself ablaze. 4. A complaint (Exh.27) in this regard came to be lodged by the complainant against the present respondents-accused, which was registered as II-CR No.203 of 2005 before the Makarpura Police Station, Vadodara. 5. Pursuant to the FIR, investigation was carried out and after the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the present respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 306, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Thereafter, the case was registered as the Sessions Case No.154 of 2008 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed the Charge against the respondents-accused, whereupon the respondents-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Thereafter, the case was registered as the Sessions Case No.154 of 2008 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed the Charge against the respondents-accused, whereupon the respondents-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and adduced documentary evidence in support of their case, which are as follow : WITNESSES WITNESS NAME EXHIBIT 1. Laxmanbhai Budhabhai Solanki 09 2. Ilyasbhai Noormahmad Vora Patel 11 3. Mohanbhai Kanjibhai Parmar 17 4. Sandipbhai Rajaram Sadvi 18 5. Ramchandra Lilaram Guptchandani 19 6. Dr.Neha Hitendrabhai Sheth 21 7. Amrutbhai Jethabhai B.No.1560 24 8. Dr.Ashok Krushnalal Mahajan 34 9. Saifuddinkhan Habibullakhan 37 10. Kanchanbhai Nanjibhai Rathva 39 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SR. NO. DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT EXHIBIT 1 Complaint by Vinodbhai Mohanbhai 27 2 Panchnama of the scene of offence 10 3 Panchnama of the recovery of muddamal from the accused 12 4 Treatment Certificate of the S.S.G. Hospital 22 5 Copy of the Resolution 38 7. On completion of the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge explained the incriminating circumstances against the respondents-accused. The respondents-accused, in their further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., explained the incriminating circumstances that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the alleged offence. 8. On completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them under Sections 306, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, however, convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as stated herein above vide judgment and order dated 30.04.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.154 of 2008. 9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the sentence mainly on the grounds that the sentence awarded by the trial court is highly inadequate and disproportionate to the offence committed by the respondents- accused and the trial court has committed an error in taking a lenient view while imposing a lesser sentence. 10. Though served, none entered appearance on behalf of the respondents-accused. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-STATE. 11. 10. Though served, none entered appearance on behalf of the respondents-accused. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-STATE. 11. Learned APP Ms.Shruti Pathak appearing for the appellant- State has submitted that the trial court has, without any adequate and special reasons, awarded inappropriate sentence and directed the accused to suffer simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs.500.00 only. The law is well-settled in this regard that while awarding the punishment, the court should take into consideration the nature of offence, the circumstances under which it was committed and the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. Thus, the measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. In the facts of the present case, despite the overwhelming evidence against the accused persons, the trial court awarded lesser sentence, which ultimately will result in travesty of justice and also spread a wrong message to the society. The trial court ought to have taken a deterrent view while imposing the sentence in such a serious offence. Learned APP Ms.Pathak has lastly submitted that taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances as well as the seriousness and gravamen of the offence committed by the respondents-accused, the appeal may be allowed and the sentence awarded by the trial court may be enhanced to the maximum punishment for the offence with which the accused was charged. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS : 12. The punishment for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. Section 323 reads thus : “323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.— Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 13. Section 323 reads thus : “323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.— Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 13. On the overall appreciation and reanalysis of the entire evidence, it appears that the trial court, after taking into consideration the nature of the incident as well as the circumstances under which it was occurred, has directed the respondents-accused to suffer simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs.500=00, which, in my opinion, do not suffer from any perversity or illegality since substantially the sentence as provided under the section has been imposed except that the amount of fine, which is Rs.1,000=00, has been reduced to Rs.500=00. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial court, since, while exercising judicial discretion, sufficient and adequate reasons were recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment. This Court is satisfied with the reasoning assigned by the trial court on the aspect of sentence and, therefore, no interference is required to be made with the discretion exercised by the trial court. It is settled position of law that the question of sentence is a matter of discretion and if there is sufficient reasons recorded by the trial court, then the High Court should not interfere with the decision of the trial court on the issue of sentence. This Court deems it fit to refer the principles, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bed Raj vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1955 SC 778 , governing the exercise of power of High Court while enhancing the sentences imposed by the trial court, which reads as under : “A question of a sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused person except for very strong reasons which must be disclosed on the face of the judgment; see for example the observations in -'Dalip Singh v/s. State of Punjab', and 'Nar Sigh v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh'. In a matter of enhancement there should not be interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment. Interference is only called for when it is manifestly inadequate. In our opinion, these principles have not been observed. It is impossible to hold in the circumstances described that the Sessions Judge did not impose a substantial sentence, and no adequate reason has been assigned by the learned High Court Judges for considering the sentence manifestly inadequate. In the circumstances, bearing all the considerations of this case in mind, we are of opinion that the appeal (which is limited to the question of sentence) should be allowed and that the sentence imposed by the High Court should be set aside and that of the Sessions Court restored.” 14. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and, in recording the same, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the trial court. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference with the order of sentence passed by the trial court. 15. In above view of the matter, this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of sentence passed by the trial court. The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Records and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court.