YASINBHAI NOORBHAI KURESHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is preferred by original accused NO.1 and 2 questioning the judgment and order dated 16/06/1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City sentencing the accused for varied sentences; maximum being five years on their conviction under Sections 365, 367, 342, 323, 324 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the appellants have served a sentence of about three years before their enlargement by this Court as stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

(2.) The incident in question dates back to 30/12/1994. On that date, at about 10:00 a.m., the accused No.1, being appellant No.1 herein, is said to have abducted the victimcomplainant - Aabid Husen from his residence under the guise of settling the accounts. As per prosecution case, the accused No.1 had come to the house of the victim at about 10:00 a.m. on the aforesaid date and asked him to accompany him for setting the accounts. The complainant obliged and occupied the pillion seat of the yellow colour scooter of the appellant No.1 herein. While on the way, it is stated that near the shop of one Bansilal Pendawala, accused No.2appellant No.2 herein was found waiting and on arrival of accused No.1 with the complainant, all the three boarded autorickshaw after the appellant No.1 parked the scooter near the shop of Bansi Pendawala. It is stated that the victim was taken by both the appellants who are brothers to one house in Mirzapur where some weapons like hockey stick, pipes were also lying and therein the victim was confined for about 04 hours during which period he was assaulted by the appellants including two persons, who according to the complainant-victim were already present before their arrival in the said house.

(3.) It is the prosecution case that after assaulting the complainant, he was taken back in the autorickshaw accompanied by accused No.1 and on the way to the house of the complainant, the appellant NO.1 disembarked the autorickshaw and the complainant was left alone to reach his house. After about 3:00 p.m., the complainant reached his house and while seated in the autorickshaw, called for the help of his father, PW 7 who, responding to the call of the complainant, came out of the house and helped him to his residence. PW 7 found several injuries narrated by him in his testimony on the person of the victim and according to his deposition, the victim was not even able to speak anything in fear and injuries sustained by him. After about few hours, the complainant was helped to the clinic of Dr. Memon, PW 8 who claims in his testimony to have examined the complainant and has found various injuries as narrated by him in his testimony on the person of the complainant. According to the doctor, he found fracture in the left hand of the complainant and therefore applied bandage and discharged him after giving primary treatment.