CR.A/633/1992 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 633 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= KIRITBHAI DAYABHAI PATEL - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR KUNAL S SHAH FOR MR MR BA SURTI for Appellant(s) : 1, MS HANSA POONANI, APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 08/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 25.6.1992 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in CR.A/633/1992 2/4 JUDGMENT Sessions Case No.197/1991. 2. The appellants were the original accused charged with offences punishable under Sections 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He was however, not convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but the learned trial Judge found that he had committee offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 250/-. 3. As per the prosecution case, the appellant and Kamleshbhai-PW7(exh.25) were known to each other. Due to some verbal altercation about throwing of stones suspected by the appellant to have been done by the injured witness, the appellant gave one Dhariya blow to Kamleshbhai on his head and caused grievous injury. 4. Insofar as incident is concerned, learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the involvement of the appellant. With respect to these findings, there cannot be any serious doubt or debate. Apart from the injured eyewitness Kamleshbhai, there were other witnesses also who had narrated the incident in somewhat similar fashion. The evidence of the eyewitness was corroborated by the medical evidence in form of deposition of Dr. Narendrabhai Gunvantrai Joshi-PW1(exh.8). He was CR.A/633/1992 3/4 JUDGMENT the medical officer at the Health Centre, Jambusar. He had treated Kamleshbhai on 15.8.1991. He had found that Kamleshbhai had one injury on the head of 15 x 1 cm which was skin deep. Doctor stated that such injury could have been caused by Dhariya and that injury was grievous. 5. Considering the overwhelming eyewitness account as well as medical evidence, conclusions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the appellant had committed an act of causing grievous injury to Kamleshbhai called for no interference. 6. As noted, learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to one year of rigorous imprisonment. Insofar as quantum of punishment is concerned, no interference is called for. One may however, not lose sight of the fact that the appellant was aged about 22 years on the date of incident. The incident took place in the year 1991. The appellant is not a hard-core criminal. There was no previous involvement of the appellant in criminal case nor his subsequent involvement is pointed out to the Court. 7. I have also considered the nature of injury caused by the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant gave one blow and did not cause any further injury. The blow though given CR.A/633/1992 4/4 JUDGMENT by Dhariya and on the vital part of the body, was not given with any force. Resultantly, injury was only skin deep. Though the Doctor stated that there was injury of skull fracture, no X-ray was taken out to conclude this aspect. 8. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I find that it would be wholly inappropriate to direct the appellant to serve out the entire sentence at this distant point of time. He deserves benefit of probation. 9. Under the circumstances, though conviction and sentence of the appellant is upheld, he is given benefit of probation. He will furnish a bond of good behaviour for a period of one year before the trial Court. This shall be done within a period of eight weeks from today. In case of breach of the bond, he shall serve out the sentence. 10.With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. (Akil Kureshi,J.) (raghu)