CR.A/58420/2002 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 584 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ====================================== 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 ? ====================================== BHARAT JETHALAL JOSHI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ====================================== Appearance : MR KB ANANDJIWALA for the Appellant Ms Mita Pacnhal, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 02/12/2008 CR.A/58420/2002 2/3 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant – original accused challenging judgment and order dated 25th June 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj in Sessions Case No.35 of 2001 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is a case of single blow on the abdomen of the deceased by the appellant. Admittedly, neither there was any previous animosity nor a quarrel took place at the scene of offence. The only allegation is that the accused was footloose with a knife and was making brave gestures here and there. The rickshawalla, who is the deceased, had nothing to do with him. How the incident had occurred and what was the reason is not coming forward. It cannot be determined with definiteness that the accused had any intention of causing any injury for the purpose of killing deceased – Ibrahim. How and why the deceased was killed was not coming on the record boldly. It appears that it was only an act of misplaced bravery, which, the accused has done and in that view of the matter, clause 3 of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code would not be attracted and there being only one injury and there being no pre-meditation, the offence would be covered by Section 304 Part-I of Indian Penal Code. In that background, we are persuaded to alter the conviction from Section 302 to IPC to 304 Part-I. It is stated that the accused has remained beind the bars since 26th August 2001. In that background, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence already gone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice. CR.A/58420/2002 3/3 JUDGMENT In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction is altered from Sections 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-I and conviction under Section 324 of IPC is, however, maintained. The period of sentence undergone in both the sentences would meet ends of justice. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed. The accused shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. (Bhagwati Prasad, J.) (Bankim N Mehta, J.) *mohd