SOMA BHIKHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 473 of 1999 has been filed by the appellants-original accused nos. 1 and 3, challenging the judgment and order 24. 04. 1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, B. K. at Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 111 of 1997, whereby the appellants-original accused nos. 1 and 3 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II, read with 114 of IPC, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 324 of IPC, appellant no. 1 is only convicted. For conviction under Sections 304 Part-II read with Section 114 IPC, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine further R. I. for six months. For conviction under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further R. I. for one month. For conviction under Section 324 IPC, appellant no. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 1. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 1998 has been filed by the respondent-State challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 24. 04. 1998 as afore stated for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court, B. K. at Palanpur.

(2.) TODAY, when the matter was called on for hearing, the learned APP has produced on record the jail report. The said report is taken on record. On perusal of the said report, it transpires that so far as appellant no. 1 is concerned, he has undergone sentence imposed by the Court below and on account of his good conduct, the jail authorities has reduced his sentence for a period of one year and 24 months and released him. Hence, appeal qua appellant no. 1 has become infructuous.

(3.) WE have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. We have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The trial Court has recorded a finding that the appellants were aggressor and that they had caused serious injuries, which has resulted into offence under Section 302. The said fact is supported by the P. M. note medical at Exhibit-53. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ms. Sadhna Sagar learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial Court has ignored the material evidence on record.