RABARI RAJABHAI RANABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of these appeals, original accused No. 1, 3 & 4 have challenged the judgement and order dated 18.08.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Patan in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2004 whereby the trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused as under. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the accused were given benefit of set off.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.10.2003, at around 05.00 pm when the husband of the complainant went to the place where the construction work of toilet in School was being done, the accused persons started threatening him and told him that he was the person who was instigating the Sarpanch. Thereafter, on 14.10.2003, when the complainant, her husband, one Ramilaben and one Jamabhai Naranbhai were in their farm and at around 05.00 pm while they had completed milking buffaloes, the accused person came there. It is the case of the prosecution that accused persons came there and assaulted the complainant and her husband. Accused No. 1 was armed with stick and he gave a stick blow on the deceased, accused No. 2 armed with stick gave stick blow on the stomach of the deceased as well as Jamabhai, accused No. 3 gave being armed with a dhariya gave dhariya blow to Ramilaben and accused No. 4 was armed with axe and he gave axe blow to the complainant and deceased on his head. The complainant therefore started shouting and as people gathered there the accused persons ran away. A complaint was therefore registered by the complainant.

(3.) Mr. Yogesh Lakhani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the accused in both the appeals is not in a position to dispute the genesis of the incident considering the fact that this is a case of cross complaint where both the sides were involved. Mr. Lakhani however submitted that the incident happened in 2003 and almost 12 years have passed and therefore considering the fact that considerable period of time has lapsed, this Court may take a considerate view in the matter. He submitted that the accused are remorseful and are ready and willing to pay appropriate amount as compensation to the victim and his family members. He has submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted in toto, the blow inflicted upon by accused No. 1 on the deceased is single and therefore the trial court ought to have applied section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code. He has submitted that even on that ground the judgement of the trial court requires to be altered.