GIRISHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.5] Bharuch. The appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 1625 of 2004 are original accused nos. 1 and 2 of Sessions Case No. 4 of 2004 and the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 1193 of 2007 are original accused nos. 1 to 5 of Sessions Case No. 5 of 2004. Both the said Sessions Cases were tried jointly and decided by a common judgment under challenge. Initially, the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 1193 of 2007 had challenged the very judgment and order along with two other accused persons of Sessions Case No. 4 of 2004 but when it came to the notice of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that appellant nos. 3 to 7 were the accused persons of different Sessions Case, separate appeal, to put the records straight has been preferred and thus, both these appeals are heard together after deleting the names of the appellant nos. 3 to 7 from the cause title of Criminal Appeal No. 1625 of 2004.

(2.) All the accused persons have been held guilty of the charge of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307 and 397 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. All the accused have been directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years qua the offences punishable under Section 397 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C.; for 5 years for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C.; to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offences punishable under Section 143 of I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offences punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C. The accused are also directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 397 and 307 of I.P.C. Respectively. In default of fine as stated above, punishment is imposed for same period for all the offences, that is, six months' simple imprisonment. Except accused no.4 Nipunchandra @ Montu Bharatbhai Kansara, rest of the accused persons were enlarged on bail pending trial and after the order of conviction, they have been granted bail by this Court. The said accused no. 4 was in prison since the date of his arrest but thereafter, considering the period for which he remained in jail, this Court granted bail to the said accused. Therefore, he is also enjoying the bail. Rest of the accused persons being piecemeal, they were charge sheeted differently and obviously therefore, they were committed by two different orders of committal to the Court of Sessions. Consequently, two different Sessions Cases were registered. However, both the said Sessions Cases have been tried and decided simultaneously.

(3.) Mr. V.H. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals has taken me through various grounds of challenge mentioned in the memos of appeals, so also through the relevant part of the judgment. It is submitted by Mr. Patel that none of the important witnesses who could be said to be independent witnesses, has supported the case of the prosecution. Even the injured victim has not named any of the accused as assailants or persons responsible to the injury inflicted on him on the date of the incident. According to Mr. Patel, it was not even the case of the accused persons before the trial court that the incident has not occurred in the manner in which it has been described by the complainant, but because of number of lacunas and infirmities in the evidence led by the prosecution, accused ought not to have been connected with the crime. It was also submitted before the trial court that there was probability of false implication of the accused and the incident was relating to communal disturbance that had taken place on the day of Bharat Bandh call and the police was under tremendous pressure and obligation to resolve the registered crime, because, it has come in the evidence that the victim was assaulted near the area where special chocky, that is, fixed point was established in order to prevent any untoward incident and therefore, active workers of Bhartiya Janata Party were implicated by the police, otherwise, police officer who had visited the injured when he was in the hospital at Amod itself could have collected the names of the assailants. It is neither the case of the prosecution nor it was contended before the Court that the victim was not knowing any of the accused by name. Some of them were important figures in public life and therefore, it was easy for the injured and other persons who had accompanied the victim to hospital to name the assailants. It was submitted that this was the case of delayed FIR.