TANSUKHBHAI SHANTIBHAI GOHEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. He is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The judgment was delivered by Sessions Court, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2004.

(2.) THE appellant was working with Govindbhai Kanjibhai Jethwa Koli of Mafatnagar Zupadpatti, at Kumbharwada, on Bhavnagar Ruvapari Road and because of some earlier quarrel, the appellant assaulted Govindbhai Kanjibhai around 9. 00 P. M. on 10th May, 2003 with a knife and caused injuries on abdomen, chest and back. He was, therefore, charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 307 of I. P. C. on the basis of an F. I. R. lodged by Rupaben, wife of Sanjaybhai Madhabhai Rathod and daughter of injured-Govindbhai Kanjibhai. The Magisterial Court, Bhavnagar, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Case No. 38 of 2004 came to be registered. The Sessions Court framed charge against the accused at Exhibit 6 for offences punishable under Section 307 of I. P. C. and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 2. 1 The Trial Court found that the prosecution was successful in establishing the charges against the accused and recorded his conviction and passed the sentence, as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. This has given rise to the present appeal.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Shaikh, for the appellant submitted that the appellant was in jail during the trial for a period of three months and 21 days and he is in jail since conviction, i. e. 28th February, 2006. The main submission is that the prosecution case depends on evidence of Rupaben, the first informant, and injured, Govindbhai, at Exhibits 18 and 51, respectively. The medical evidence is of Dr. Varshaben, at Exhibit 28. Mr. Shaikh submitted that there are contradictory versions emerging from their evidence as to the site of injury on person of the victim. Apart from that, Mr. Shaikh submitted that if the evidence of Rupaben, Govindbhai and Dr. Varshaben is considered together, it would be clear from their contradictions that all the injuries cannot be attributed to the accused. He also submitted that, even if that is done, all the injuries are simple in nature as per the medical evidence and there is no evidence to say that they are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He, therefore, submitted that the accused could not have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I. P. C. According to him, at the most, it would constitute an offence punishable under Section 324 of the I. P. C. and, if the Court is of the opinion that the conviction is required to be altered to one under Section 324 of the I. P. C. , then appropriate alteration in quantum of punishment may also be made.