GHELABHAI JAGMALBHAI BHAWAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed by the appellants who were accused in Sessions Case No. 112 of 1992 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) for charges of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 34, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. The learned trial Judge, after considering the materials on record in the shape of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment, with a further fine of Rs 5000 to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment in default of payment thereof and further convicted them under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC with a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment, therefor, in addition to a fine of Rs 5000, in default of payment of which to undergo a further six months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved, the appellant-accused pursued the matter before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 1995. A Division Bench of the High Court in the judgment dated 17-4-2002, agreed with the findings of the learned trial Judge and while affirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Hence the above appeal.

(2.) Even at the time of granting leave, the same was confined by order dated 28-10-2002, to the nature of offence only. Consequently, we consider it inappropriate to make detailed reference to the entire episode and the learned counsel also did not delve much into the length and depth of the entire evidence except inviting our attention to such of the materials on record and documents relevant to a consideration of the restricted leave granted by this Court.

(3.) Shri Maganbhai Barot, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants invited our attention elaborately to the medical evidence tendered through PW 2 and sought to impress upon us that Injury 3 found on the deceased was considered to be mainly a simple injury from the medical point of view and that in the absence of any intention on the part of Accused 3 to whom the said injury was attributed to cause the death of the victim or to cause such injury as is sufficient in the normal course to cause his death, there is hardly any scope for his conviction under Section 302. It is further contended that since there is no material to prove that the remaining accused shared any common intention with A-3 either to cause death or to cause such injury which is likely to cause death of the victim, their conviction also under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC was also unsustainable. The learned counsel was vehement in his contention that if at all, the case as substantiated by the prosecution on the evidence brought on record, at best could make out only an offence under Section 323 of the Penal Code and nothing more. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent State invited our attention to the portions of the evidence as well as the judgments of the courts below and while adopting the reasoning of the courts below contended that there is no scope for a rethinking even on the nature of the offences committed by the appellants and their concurrent conviction by both the courts below and the sentence imposed therefor, calls for no interference in this appeal.