CR.A/35419/1987 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 354 of 1987 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 394 of 1987 To CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 395 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= NANDLAL PRANSHANKER & 6 - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR KJ SHETHNA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 7. Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, APP, for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 30/07/2008 CR.A/35419/1987 2/2 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) In these appeals the accused have been convicted under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and also under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. An application for compounding of the offence has been filed. The application filed is in relation to the offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, compounding of the offences is permitted and the accused is acquitted of those charges levelled against them. As regards conviction under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code, since compounding is not permissible, we have taken cognizance that the parties have compromised and have entered into a peaceful agreement. So keeping in view of the fact that the parties are closely related and residents of the same village, it would not be appropriate to maintain the sentence under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, we reduce the substantive sentence under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code for the period undergone by the accused and enhance the fine to Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred). To the aforesaid extent the appeal is allowed. Appeals filed by the State are dismissed. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J) (S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J) (pkn)