AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] The present appeal is preferred by the appellant original accused against the judgment and order dated 23.4.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.91 of 1998, whereby the appellant accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/ in default, further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offences under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
[2] The short facts giving rise to the present case are that on 15.04.1997 at 13.30 hours, opposite Devdarshan Shopping Centre and also opposite to Mangilal hathi, due to some altercation, the accused No.1Bharatbhai Chauhan came with knife (sharp instrument) and stabbed the victim Pramodbhai on his left thigh and also stabbed on the posterior axillary line of limber region, in order to kill him and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 114 and Sections 504, 506(2) etc. of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Accordingly, a complaint was filed before Vejalpur Police Station.
[3] In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the accused person. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidences.
3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.
[4] Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court.
[5] By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant original accused has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such.
[6] Learned advocate Mr.A.M.Parekh for the appellant has taken this Court to the entire record and proceedings. He submitted that the incident occurred in the year 1997 i.e. for about 21 years back and thereafter the accused and the complainant are residing together happily. He further states that two blows are alleged to have been inflicted over posterior axillary line of limber region as well as thigh, which are not vital part of the body and for that cause, the accused was charged with the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In alternative, he submitted that in view of the evidence on record, if this Court is of the opinion for upholding conviction, then he has urged that since the incident occurred before about 21 years, leniency may be shown in reducing the punishment awarded by the learned Trial Court as such. He, therefore, urged to acquit the accused or in alternative to reduce the sentence.
[7] On the otherhand, Ms. C.M.Shah, learned APP has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court so far as it relates to conviction of the appellant original accused. She submitted that taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court has rightly inflicted punishment of three years and six months which needs no interference by this Court as findings recorded by learned trial Court is based upon the concrete and clinching evidence. Hence, it is submitted that the accused has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
[8] At this stage, it is relevant to reproduce Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows :
Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
[9] This Court has heard Mr.A.M.Parekh learned advocate for the appellant accused and Ms.C.M.Shah, learned APP for the State.
[10] This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book.
[11] This Court has gone through the rival submissions advanced by the learned advocate for both the sides, and this Court has also gone through the record and proceedings as well as impugned judgment of the Trial Court. On over all analysis on the evidence on record, it is evident from the submission of Mr. Parekh, learned advocate for the appellant that the accused and the complainant are now residing happily together. Moreover, certified by the doctor, two injuries were came to be noted on the body of victim. While victim went to Panbidi shop, at that time, due to some altercation, the accused assaulted the victim by giving successive blows over the left thigh and posterior axillary line of limber region and he had undergone treatment for about 13 days in the hospital, and thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital.
[12] On going through the records and proceedings of the case as well as impugned judgment of the learned trial Court, it is noticed from the depositions of various witnesses including Investigating Officer and doctors that this is a fit case to sustain the conviction as imposed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has assigned ample and cogent reasons to convict the appellant accused. This Court is in full agreement with the reasons so assigned by the learned trial Court in its impugned judgment. It is also a settled legal position that the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the reason assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.
[13] Taking into consideration the rival submissions and the fact that the incident occurred in the year 1997 i.e. for about 21 years back and thereafter for about two decade, peace is prevailing between them and on overall evaluation of the evidence on record, it is emerging out that the learned trial Court has rightly taken into consideration the provisions of Indian Penal Code and convicted under section 307 of the IPC. But in the facts of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence from 3 years and 6 months R.I. to 2 years R.I. under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice, the appellant shall also pay Rs. 25,000/ to the victim Pramod Bhalaji Padhiyar as compensation.
[14] In view of the above discussion, the following final order is passed:
Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 2001 filed by the applicantoriginal accused stands partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.91 of 1998 is modified to the extent that conviction so recorded by learned trial Court is sustained. However, sentence is reduced from three years and six months rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant shall also pay amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/ to Pramodbhai Bhalaji Padhiyar, who had sustained the injuries and the aforesaid amount shall be deposited before the trial Court within a period of three months from today, failing which, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e. three years and six months rigorous imprisonment, shall stand revived and the appellant original accused shall have to undergo the aforementioned sentence. Rest of the judgment remains unaltered. The appellant - original accused - Bharatbhai Khushalbhai Chauhan is ordered to surrender to custody within a period of one month from receipt of the copy of this order for undergoing the remainder sentence, if he has not undergone so far, failing which the investigating agency shall be at liberty to take necessary action in accordance with law. Usual setoff shall be extended to the appellantoriginal accused for the period of sentence, he served during trial. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.
R & P be sent back to the learned trial Court, forthwith.
[15] In view of the above, the Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed.