CR.A/1115/1998 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1115 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE ========================================================= 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 ARJANBHAI KALABHAI RABARI & 1 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR IM PANDYA, APP for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE Date : 28/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By filing the present appeal, the appellant State has challenged the judgment and order dated 8.10.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Special Case CR.A/1115/1998 2/5 JUDGMENT No.13 of 1998 whereby learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused for the offence under Section 452 of IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment to the extent already undergone by him as undertrial prisoner and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, sentence of simple imprisonment for one week. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant Bhavnaben Bhupendrabhai Mochi filed the complaint in Khambhat Rural Police Station on 10.1.1998 to the effect that the complainant and her husband were residing in the house of the accused Arjanbhai on rent. At about 2.30 in the afternoon, when the complainant and her husband were at their house, the accused Arjanbhai, his son Bharatbhai and his brother Chehabhai entered their house by speaking filthy language and inflicted two blows on the chest of the complainant. On her husband intervening, the accused inflicted blows on him also and threw the household articles outside and threatened them to vacate the house or they shall be done to death. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the same and after investigation, arrested the accused and submitted the chargesheet in the court of Sessions. CR.A/1115/1998 3/5 JUDGMENT 3. The Sessions Court framed the charge and on the accused denying the allegations and claiming to be tried, the evidences of complainant's side were recorded, further statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and after hearing learned advocates for the parties, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion, as stated above, against which the present appeal is filed by the State. 4. Heard learned APP Mr.I.M.Pandya for the State. Though served, none appears for the respondents. Perused the papers of the trial Court including the judgment which is under challenge. 5. It is submitted by learned APP Mr.I.M.Pandya that considering the facts of the present case, learned trial Judge has erred in taking lenient view at the time of imposing sentence on the respondents – accused. He submitted that learned trial Judge ought to have imposed maximum punishment considering the facts of the present case and hence, it is requested that this Court may enhance the sentence imposed upon the accused herein. CR.A/1115/1998 4/5 JUDGMENT 6. It can be noticed from the record that the charge levelled against the present accused is for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(10) of Atrocity Act and Sections 452, 323, 354, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code. The alleged incident had occurred on 10.1.1998 as has been stated by the complainant Kokilaben @ Bhavnaben Bhupendrabhai in her deposition at Exh.8. She has stated that she was residing in the house of the accused Arjanbhai Kalabhai Rabari on rent and for vacating the house, the accused was raising quarrel with her in any manner. It is further stated by her that on the day of incident when her husband was at home, the accused entered into the house and threw the household items outside and abused the complainant and administered threat and, therefore, she lodged the complaint at Exh.9 before the Khambhat Police Station. 7. It can further be noticed from the record learned trial Judge has appreciated the evidence on record and examined several witnesses. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 3(1) (10) of the Atrocity Act. Learned trial Judge also found that CR.A/1115/1998 5/5 JUDGMENT the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Sections 354, 323, 504 and 506(2), however, the prosecution succeeded in proving the offence under Section 452 of IPC and accordingly, learned trial Judge passed the impugned order as stated above, holding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 452 of IPC. 8. In view of the above, I am in complete agreement with the judgment and order passed by learned trial Judge and, therefore, I do not find any merits in this appeal. Hence, this appeal stands dismissed. (Sharad D.Dave,J) srilatha