STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KOLI SAVJIBHAI GANDABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are preferred by the State against the judgment and order rendered by the Sessions Court, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No.76/1995, on 30th January, 1997.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the incident occurred on 6.6.1995 at about 5.15 p.m., in the main Bazar of Lakhtar, when the present respondent -accused allegedly inflicted two hockey stick blows on one Pranjivandas Dharamshibhai, on account of a quarrel that erupted because of some sale transaction of a house. It is also alleged that the respondent intimidated the deceased by saying that if the deceased did not sell the house to him, the respondent would kill him. After the incident, victim Pranjivandas Dharamshibhai went to the police station and lodged the FIR, on the basis of which, the offence was registered and investigation was started. The police, after investigation, filed charge sheet in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Lakhtar, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, as the offences were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, and Sessions Case No.76/95 came to be registered.

(3.) THE trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving the involvement of the respondent in the offence. However, the Court was of the view that the offence, for which the respondent can be convicted, was one punishable under Section 304 Part -II of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 I.P.C. The Court recorded that the incident occurred in a sudden quarrel. The Court also observed that there was only one blow given by the respondent to the deceased on his head with a hockey stick, the other blow was given on leg and, therefore, the intention to cause death cannot be inferred. It would, therefore, not constitute an offence of murder, but, an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The trial Court, accordingly, recorded the conviction under Section 304 Part -II of I.P.C, and sentenced the respondent to undergo R.I for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ -, in default, to undergo S.I for three months. The trial Court, however, did not award any separate sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506(2) of I.P.C. The respondent was, however, not convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.