STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARISHKUMAR M KHALAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 1074 of 1994 preferred by the State is for enhancement of sentence against the judgement and order dated 31. 08. 1994 passed by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad in Atrocity Case No. 10 of 1994, whereby the accused has been convicted of the charges leveled against him under section 304 Part II.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that the deceased complainant was residing in house no. 3006, Vinobhabhave Nagar, Vinzol along with his family. The present accused was his neighbour residing in house no. 3005. On 25. 12. 1993, at about 7. 30 am the complainant's wife was fetching water from the tap situated outside their house. As the water flow was very slow, she asked the complainant to request the present accused of close one of the taps. However, the accused denied to close the tap. He started to utter abuses and therefore the complainant asked him not to utter such words. This enraged the accused and therefore he went inside and came out with a Gupti in his hand. The Gupti was used to inflict a blow on the upper region of private portion of the complainant. While trying to stop the accused, the complainant also sustained injuries on little finger of his left palm. The complainant was taken to L. G. Hospital and later to V. S. Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.

(3.) MS. Manisha Luvkumar Shah, learned APP has submitted that the trial court ought to have taken serious view of the matter and ought to have imposed maximum sentence upon the accused. She has submitted that considering the injuries on the complainant and the fact that he succumbed to those injuries, the sentence of five years is absolutely inadequate and that the trial court ought to have awarded maximum sentence prescribed under the Act. 3. 1 She has further submitted that the trial court failed in appreciating that the accused had a quarrel with the deceased and upon intervention the accused had gone to his home and brought a gupti by which he inflicted blows upon the deceased. This clearly shows that the act of the accused after separation from the scuffle was to kill the complainant and the prosecution has from the evidence on record proved beyond doubt that the accused has committed offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the impugned judgement and order acquitting the accused is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.