UDAYVIRSING BRAHMADATTSING BHADORIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By preferring the present appeal, the appellant original complainant has challenged the judgement and order passed by the learned City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad dated 06.01.2020 in Sessions Case No.362 of 2018, whereby it has convicted respondents No.1 and 3 for the offences punishable under sections 307, read with section 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced these respondents to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and pay fine Rs.25,000 each and in default to suffer further imprisonment. There are other provisions, under which, these respondents have been convicted.The challenge is made by the original complainant, the present appellant, who, being aggrieved by the fact that the punishment awarded under section 307 is quite less, so far as respondents No.2 and 3 are concerned, and therefore, the prayer sought for are as follows:

(2.) We have heard Mr. Krunal G. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, who has fervently urged that this is a case, which has arisen from the lodgement of First Information Report being C.R.No.II-215 of 2017 with Nikol police station, where accused No.1 had asked the main complainant early in the morning of 19.11.2017 expressing his desire to meet him as his mother had become paralytic. He asked him to get to his office in the morning at about 10:00 a.m. It is the case of the prosecution that these two respondents had caught hold of complainant and accused No.1 had attempted to kill him with a gun. He could barely save himself and it has resulted into lodgement of the First Information Report and the same culminated into Sessions Case No.362 of 2018. In this background for lesser punishment under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the present appeal is preferred under section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being the complainant and the victim, the same is resisted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Shah relying upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of National Commission for Women vs. State of Delhi and another , 2010 12 SCC 599. He also drew attention of this Court in the case of Harendrabhai alias Bachubhai Keshavlal Barod vs. State of Gujarat passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12784 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 1366 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal No. 1366 of 2019, where the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Ms. Bela M. Trivedi & A.C.Rao, J.J.), relying on this very decision of the Apex Court, did not entertain the Criminal Appeal, which was preferred by the original complainant for enhancement of the sentence on the ground that it was not maintainable.

(3.) Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pravinder Kansal vs. The State of NCT of Delhi and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2020 on 28.08.2020. It was a case where for lesser punishment of life imprisonment imposed on the respondent, conviction was found inadequate by the father of the deceased, who had made a request for enhancement to death penalty. The matter when is looked at, the Apex Court has referred to section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the victim to prefer an appeal passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation.