PRAVINBHAI GOVINDBHAI SATHWARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed against the judgement and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, on 25. 4. 2001 in Sessions Case No. 228 of 2000.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The incident is not disputed. This is borne out from the facts of the case that both the parties were engaged in cutting jokes and were of hilarious mood. All of a sudden, a tension rouse between the parties and the borne of contention became that the deceased wanted them to go home. On this the accused parties retaliated. There are 20 injuries on the person of the deceased but the injury by sword is the injury that is serious to cause death of the deceased. The other injuries are minor injuries. According to learned counsel for the appellant, it cannot be said that each one of the accused had intention to kill the deceased. It can at least be said that the common object of the accused was to give a thrashing because they wanted to tell the deceased that he had no business to tell them to go home. This is too trifle cause to give an enraged feeling of the accused that anybody would go to the extent of causing death. Maybe that Keshubhai has exceeded the common object to give a thrash and cause an injury by sword thereby causing death of the deceased. Learned A. P. P. has fairly considered that the doctor in his statement has clearly stated that the cause of death is by sword injury. In that background, learned counsel for the appellants stated that it cannot be said that the common object of the group was to cause injury of the nature of death. In that background, we are persuaded by the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants to observe that accused Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 cannot be held guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302, 149 of IPC. Instead, they are convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and the sentence already undergone by them is considered as sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accused No. 2 Keshubhai Gokaldas is convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life as has been ordered by the trial Court.

(3.) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 is altered from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-II of IPC. They have remained behind bars considerably. Therefore, their sentence is considered as sufficient to meet the ends of justice. They are ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Conviction of accused No. 2 Keshubhai Gokaldas under Section 302 of IPC is however maintained. He is ordered to serve out life sentence as ordered by the trial Court.