ASHOK KUMAR MAGABHAI VANKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.301 of 1998 has affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in Sessions Case No.32 of 1996. Being aggrieved by these judgments and orders, the appellant is before us in this appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, initially, would submit that the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') requires to be converted into an offence under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. In support of that submission, learned counsel has taken us through a portion of the evidence and the conclusions reached by both the Trial Court and the High Court. In our view, it would be suffice to refer only to para 31 of the judgment of the High Court to find out whether the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant requires to be accepted. Para 31 of the judgment of the High Court reads as under :

(2.) It is the case of the Prosecution that P.W.4, with the help of a bamboo stick had meddled with a live wire and thereby, had caused the disappearance of the electricity supply to the house of the accused. It is further the case of the Prosecution that the accused came out of his house with a long pestle and was quarreling with P.W.4. At this juncture, Maganbhai Khemabhai (since deceased) appeared in the scene and tried to pacify P.W.4 and the accused. The accused was not happy because of the intervention of Maganbhai Khemabhai (since deceased), therefore, he had pushed him. Further, the accused caught hold of the pestle, which had fallen down and he used it with such force that the head of the deceased person was broken into pieces. These aspects of the matter have been taken note of by both the Sessions Court as well as by the High Court to convict and sentence the accused person for an offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. In our opinion, we do not see any error or legal infirmity in the findings and conclusions reached by both the Courts. Therefore, no interference in the said orders and judgments is called for. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court, we reject this appeal. Ordered accordingly.