HAYAT DAWOOD DAFER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the impugned judgment and order dated 31/1/2008 rendered by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge & F.T.C. No.2, Ahmedabad [Rural] at Mirzapur, in Sessions Case No. 43/2006, whereby the appellants herein, who were original accused nos. 2 and 3, came to be convicted for the offences punishable under sections 333, 325 and 186 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and each of the appellants accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment [RI] for 10 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment [SI] for one month for the offence punishable under section 333 read with section 114 of the IPC, RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, SI for one month for the offence punishable under section 325 read with section 114 of the IPC and RI for 3 months and fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, SI for 30 days for the offence punishable under section 186 read with section 114 of the IPC. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently and they were entitled to the set-off.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in nut-shell, is that the incident occurred on 20/12/2004 and according to the prosecution case, the police personnel including deceased policeman Mandanbhai and injured policeman Pravinsinh and others attempted to arrest the original accused no. 1 Juso alias Jusab Allarakhabhai and both the appellants accused and original accused no. 1 - Juso alias Jusab Allarakhabhai resisted the arrest. It is alleged that the original accused no. 1 - Juso alias Jusab Allarakhabhai inflicted a blow with knife on the body of the deceased policeman Mandanbhai and he succumbed to the injuries. So far as role attributed to the appellants original accused nos. 2 and 3 is concerned, they snatched away stick from policeman Pravinsinh and inflicted blow with stick on his left hand and he sustained grievous injury. Mr. B K Rana, PSI lodged FIR regarding the incident. During the course of investigation, statements of material witnesses were recorded and in presence of panchas, necessary panchnamas were prepared including for recovery of weapons. After the investigation was concluded, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dholka, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Ahmedabad [Rural], which was registered as Sessions Case No. 43/2006.

(3.) SINCE the appeal is pressed only on the count of sentence, we do not deem it necessary to go into the evidence of the prosecution recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the prosecution successfully proved commission of the offences punishable under sections 333, 325 and 186 read with sec. 114 of the IPC against the appellants accused nos. 2 and 3. It is further pertinent to note that while fixing the quantum of sentence for the offence punishable under section 333 of the IPC, the trial Court awarded the maximum sentence of imprisonment for 10 years prescribed for the said offence, without assigning any cogent and convincing reasons as to why the maximum sentence is required to be awarded. It is further pertinent to note that as per the role attributed to the appellants, they caused grievous injury to policeman PW 12 Pravinsinh Pratapsinh, as according to the evidence on record, Pravinsinh was caught hold of by the appellant accused no. 1 Hayat Daud and the appellant no. 2 Kava Daud inflicted blow with stick on the left hand of Pravinsinh. It is further pertinent to note that for the said injury, both the appellants came to be convicted for the offence causing grievous hurt to public servant punishable under section 333 of the IPC and for causing grievous hurt punishable under section 325 of the IPC. For causing grievous hurt punishable under section 325 of the IPC the trial Court awarded sentence of RI for 2 years.