CR.A/1068/1997 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1068 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus PIHLABHAI RAMABHAI AHIR - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR UR BHATT, APP for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA Date : 19/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment CR.A/1068/1997 2/5 JUDGMENT and order of sentence dated 31/5/1997 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari [for short 'Ld. Trial Judge'] in Sessions Case No. 8/1996, the State of Gujarat preferred this appeal under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short 'Cr. P.C.'] for enhancement of sentence. 2. The prosecution case, in nut shell, is as under :- 2.1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10/4/1995 at about 2.00 a m in the outskirts of village Dholi Kuva, Taluka Chikhli, District Valsad, the respondent – accused inflicted knife blows on injured Jayantibhai and injured Jayantibhai sustained serious bodily injuries. In connection with the offence, complainant Nanubhai Somabhai Patel lodged the FIR before police. The police registered said FIR and commenced investigation. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC in the Court of the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Navsari. Since the offence was exclusive triable by the Court of Sessions, the Ld. Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Ld. Trial Judge framed charge against accused at exh. 2. Since the accused did not plead guilt, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. After completion of the evidence, the Ld. Trial Judge recorded the further statement of the accused under section 313 of the Cr. P.C. However, in his further statement, when the question was asked to the accused, to the effect that he inflicted knife blows on the body of Jayantibhai and the accused replied that since both of them had consumed liquor and, therefore, he inflicted knife blows on the body of Jayantibhai. CR.A/1068/1997 3/5 JUDGMENT 3. After considering the evidence on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, the Ld. Trial Judge delivered the impugned judgment and order whereby he was pleased to convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 307n of the IPC and after hearing both the parties on the question pf quantum of sentence, the Ld. Trial Judge awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default simple imprisonment for 15 days. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of sentence passed by the Ld. Trial Judge, the State preferred this appeal under section 377 of the Cr. P.C. 5. Ld. APP Mr. Bhatt for the appellant State submitted that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is too lenient and disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime. That it has come in the evidence that the accused caused 12 stab wounds by his knife on the body of injured Jayantibhai and the fact that ultimately at the time when further statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Cr. P.C., virtually he admitted the offence, the Ld. Trial Judge should have appropriately punished the accused and should have awarded the maximum sentence prescribed under section 307 of the IPC. Therefore, it is submitted that appeal be allowed. 5.1. However, it is further submitted by the Ld. APP Mr. Bhatt for the appellant that the respondent – accused had fully served the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him and he was released from the jail on 22/12/1998, as sentence of imprisonment of 1 year, 8 months and 6 days were remitted by the State. 6. None appeared for the respondent – accused. CR.A/1068/1997 4/5 JUDGMENT 7. We have been taken through the relevant evidence adduced by the prosecution by the Ld. APP. Considering the deposition of injured Jayantibhai recorded at exh. 11 together with medical evidence on record in the form of deposition of Dr. Patel at exh. 18 and the injury certificate exh. 19, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. Trial Judge correctly appreciated the evidence on record while coming to the conclusion tat the prosecution successfully proved beyond any reasonable doubt the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC against the respondent – accused. It is pertinent to note that the respondent accused did not challenge his conviction by preferring any appeal before this Court. 8. Since the appeal under section 377 of the Cr. P.C preferred by the appellant – State is filed only to the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial Court, we have considered the reasonings assigned by the Ld. Trial Judge in the impugned judgment while fixing the quantum of sentence. Under section 307 of the IPC, the sentence prescribed is imprisonment for life or 10 years and fine when hurt is caused while committing the offence punishable under this section by the accused. The Ld. Trial Judge awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and fine of Rs.500/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record and further considering the fact that the respondent – accused had already undergone the full sentence awarded to him and was released from the jail on 22/12/1998, the discretion exercised by the Ld. Trial Judge while fixing the quantum of sentence cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise of his discretionary powers. CR.A/1068/1997 5/5 JUDGMENT 9. We are conscious about the fact that the appellate Court would interfere with the sentence awarded by the trial Court exercising its judicial discretion only where the sentence is manifestly inadequate and results in failure of justice. 1. Ram Narain v/s. State of U.P. - AIR 1971 SC 757 2. Ram Sanjiwan Singh v/s. State of Bihar -AIR 1996 SC 3265. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the above discussions, it cannot be said that the sentence awarded by the Ld. Trial Judge is manifestly inadequate and results in failure of justice. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. ( A. L. DAVE, J.) ( J .C. UPADHYAYA, J. ) *Pansala.