AVESH MOHAMMAD HANIF MEMON Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is preferred under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending final hearing of Criminal Appeal (against conviction) No.1506 of 2017 filed against the judgment by which the applicant-accused no.2 came to be convicted for offence under Section 307 and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, for offence under Section 326 of IPC, the applicant is sentenced to undergo ten years imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-. The applicant is also convicted for offence under Sections 324 and 506 (2) of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and seven years respectively with fine of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.4,000/-. The applicant is also convicted for offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to suffer six months imprisonment.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that one Ilyaskhan Kamarkhan Pathan, brother of the complainant, who was talking on the phone with wife of accused no.2 and some telephonic conversation was recorded, which led to some dispute, and later on compromise was arrived between them but on the day of incidence, i.e. on 11.9.2013 around 20.30 hours, the accused had called Kamarkhan Pathan and Abedabibi Pathan, wife of Kamarkhan Pathan, parents of the complainant and other relatives and the incidence had taken place following verbal altercation in which the present accused is alleged to have inflicted a knife blow in the rib-cage and, thus, inflicted grievous injuries. Other accused are also attributed with inflicting injuries on injured persons but at present, original accused no.2 is before this Court with the prayer, as above.

(3.) In the backdrop of above case of the prosecution, learned Senior Counsel appearing applicant has invited our attention to testimonies of injured witnesses and the nature of injuries and the manner in which such injuries were caused by usage of weapon like knife, medico-legal opinion, especially of Dr.Hitendra Chauhan, who was examined vide Exh.58, and who opined no doubt about grievous injury but the same was not fatal and after receiving the treatment as indoor patient, the injured was discharged within fifteen days. It is submitted that the appeal, which is admitted, is likely to take some time for final hearing and meanwhile considering overall facts and circumstances, the prayer of the applicant be considered, as prayed for.