RAJPUT ANIL RAMSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed by the appellants Rajput Anil Ramsinh and Rajput Jeetendra Ramsinh who are convicted and sentenced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Original Sessions Case No. 31 of 1985 as under : The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 and also under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the I.P.C. for causing death of Nanji Puja. Similarly, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are also convicted for the offence under Sec. 304 Part II read with Sec. 34 of I P.C. for causing death of Himanshu Vyas. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are also convicted for the offences under Sec. 324 read with Sec. 34 of the I.P.C. for causing injuries to Dhiru Nanji. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are also convicted for the similar offences for causing injuries to Bhanuben Dhirubhai, Amarshi Mavji, laduben Amarshi and Kamlesh Sonpal. They are also convicted for the offence under Sec. 342 of I.P.C. for wrongful confinement of Dhiru Nanji. They are also convicted for the offence under Sec. 457 read with Sec. 34 of the I.P.C. for committing criminal trespass at night time by breaking open the door of Amarshi Mavji with intention to commit offence. For the offences under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. they both are sentenced to life imprisonment. Similarly they both are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years for the offence under Sec. 304 Part II read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. They both are sentenced to R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 500.00 in default R.I. for 3 months for the offence under Sec. 324 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. for injuries caused to Dhiru Nanji. Similarly, for injuries caused to Bhanuben Dhirubhai, they both are sentenced to R.I. for three months and fine of Rs 300 in default R I. for one month. Similarly, for the injury caused to Amarshi Mavji and his wife Induben they both are sentenced to R.I. for three months and fine of Rs. 300.00 in default R.I. for one month. Similarly, they both are sentenced to R.I. for three months and fine of Rs. 300.00 in default R.I. for one month for causing injury to Kamlesh Sonpal. Similarly, for the offence under Sec. 342 of I.P.C. they both are sentenced to R.I. for three months and fine of Rs. 100.00 in default R.I. for 15 days and for the offence under Sec. 457 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. they both are sentenced to R.I. for three months and fine of Rs. 300.00 in default R.I. for one month. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) It may be stated that along with the accused Nos. 1 and 2 there were other accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and they were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of all the charges levelled against them.

(3.) It may be stated that the State had filed appeals being Criminal Appeals No. 653 of 1987 to 656 of 1987 but they are all dismissed by this Court on 23-8-1988. So far as the Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 1987 is concerned, it was an appeal for enhancement of sentence against the original accused No. 1. It was filed under Sec, 377 of the Cr. P. C. As there was delay in filing the said appeal application for condonation of delay was made. However, this Court did not condone the delay and accordingly the appeal came to be dismissed. So far as the Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 1987 is concerned, it was filed against the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 against the order of acquittal for the offence under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. for committing murder of Himanshu Vyas. As there was delay in filing the said appeal it cams to be dismissed. So far as the Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 1987 is concerned, it was filed against the acquittal for the offence under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34 of the I.P.C. for causing injuries to Dhirubhai Nanji against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. As there was delay in filing the appeal it came to be dismissed. So far as the Criminal Appeal No. 656 of 1987 is concerned, it was filed against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Sec. 377 of the Cr. P. C. for enhancement of sentence in respect of offence for which they have been held guilty. As there was also delay in filing the said appeal the delay was not condoned and the appeal came to be dismissed.