CR.A/1837/2006 1/18 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1837 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= GOPAL SOMESHWAR SHARMA - Appellant(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PP MAJMUDAR & Mr.S.P.Majmudar for Appellant(s) : 1, Mr. A.J.Desai for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Date : 11/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal preferred U/s. 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 is directed against the judgement and order passed by the learned CR.A/1837/2006 2/18 JUDGMENT Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 16, Baroda dated 21.09.2006 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant-accused U/s. 307 of Indian Penal Code for a period of 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default S.I for 15 days. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are stated as under:- 3. As per the complaint given by Harishkumar Somnath Gambhir which was lodged on 15.09.1999, he was serving as a booking clerk in the Reservation Office of the Indian Railway at Baroda. On 15.09.99 at about 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon, one person named Dineshbhai S. Trivedi was also working with him in reservation office of Indian Railway. As per say of Dineshbhai S. Trivedi the appellant came to him in the office and demanded reservation form. The appellant was annoyed when the reservation form as per his request was not given to him and therefore, he assaulted Dineshbhai S. Trivedi with the knife on his abdomen. On the strength of the complaint given by Harishkumar Somnath Gambhir, the offence was registered against the appellant. The place where the incident took place was visited by the Investigating Officer and the panchnama of the place of incident was prepared. The panchnama of the seizure of clothes of the victim was prepared in presence CR.A/1837/2006 3/18 JUDGMENT of punch witnesses. The panchnama with regard to recovery of knife which was used in the commission of offence was also prepared. The muddamal which was recovered, was sent to FSL for the purpose of detailed analysis. The victim who sustained injuries in the accident, was taken to the hospital for the purpose of giving him immediate treatment. On the receipt of the injury certificate issued by the Hospital as well as the FSL report, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable U/s. 307 of Indian Penal Code as well as U/s. 135 of the Bombay Police Act and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baroda who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Court, Baroda U/s. 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. 4. The charge against the appellant is framed by the learned Judge vide exh. 3 for the offence punishable U/s. 307 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act and appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge leveled against him. 5. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses in order to bring home the guilt against the appellant. They are as under: CR.A/1837/2006 4/18 JUDGMENT 1. PW 1- Dineshbhai S Trivedi-vide Exh.39 2. PW 2-Ashish Gopalbhai Shah-vide exh.40 3. PW-3Dilipbhai Chimanbhai Chauhan-vide exh.43 4. PW-4 Mahesh Ganpatrav Pawar-vide exh-45 5. PW-5 Rajesh Jayantilal Chauhan-vide exh.47 6. PW-6 Harishkumar Somnath Gambhir-vide exh.50 7. PW-7 Amrutlal Gopalji Parmar-Exh.52 8. PW-8Pravinkumar Parshottamdas Parekh-exh.53 9. PW-9 Dr. Atul Prabhakar Gupte-exh.58 10. PW-10 Dr. Bhikhubhai Manubhai Patel-exh.60 and 11. PW-11 Juvansinh Gulab Rathod-exh.65 6. The prosecution has placed reliance on the following documentary evidence. They are as under:- 1. The Complaint given by Harish vide exh.-51 2. The panchnama with regard to seizure of Muddamal vide exh.-41 3. The panchnama of the person of the accused vide exh.-44 4. The panchnama of the place of incident vide exh.-46 5. The panchnama of the seizure of the clothes put on by the injured vide exh.-48 6. The note which was sent for recording of Dying Declaration of the injured vide exh.-54 7. The dying declaration of the injured vide CR.A/1837/2006 5/18 JUDGMENT exh.-55 8. The certificate issued by S.S.G.Hospital vide exh.-59 9. The certificate given by Dr. Bhikhubhai Patel vide exh.-62,63,64 10. The note which was sent to FSL vide exh.-76 11. The report of the FSL vide exh.-82 12. The map of the place of the incident vide exh.-80 etc. to the present case 7. At the conclusion of the trial, further statement of the appellant was recorded U/s. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant took the defence that he was not present on the date of the incident and was on leave. It is also contended by the appellant that a false case was foisted on him. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Baroda after considering the entire gamut of oral deposition as well as documentary evidence held that the incident in question took place on 15.09.1999 at about 2.00 p.m in the afternoon at the Baroda Railway Station. On the date of incident, the appellant had a quarrel with the Dineshbhai S. Trivedi for obtaining the reservation form from the Railway Department and as the appellant got infuriated, he assaulted the victim with the knife in the abdomen and thus committed the offence punishable U/s. 307 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge further CR.A/1837/2006 6/18 JUDGMENT held that the oral deposition adduced by victim Dineshbhai S. Trivedi, PW.-1 vide exh. 39 makes it evident that the appellant had committed assault on him with the knife in the abdomen. The deposition adduced by Dineshbhai S. Trivedi gets the necessary corroboration from the oral deposition adduced by Dr. Bhikhubhai Patel, PW. 10 vide exh. 60, as well as the panchnama of the place of incident vide exh. 46, the punchnama of seizure of the clothes of the victim vide exh. 48 and the FSL report produced vide exh. 82. The learned Judge on the basis of the aforesaid evidence held that the prosecution has established the involvement of appellant in the commission of the offence punishable U/s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted the appellant for a period of five years R.I and a fine of Rs. 500 in default further S.I. Of 15 days. However, the learned Judge has not convicted the appellant U/s. 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Judge after considering the entire evidence held that the evidence adduced by the victim inspires confidence and trustworthy therefore, even on the basis of the evidence given by the victim, the prosecution has established the case against the appellant and thus convicted the appellant for the offence punishable U/s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code for a period of 5 years R.I and a fine of Rs. 500/, in default, further S.I. Of 15 days. CR.A/1837/2006 7/18 JUDGMENT 9. The learned Advocate Mr. P.P.Majmudar submitted that prosecution has not established involvement of appellant in the commission of offence punishable U/s. 307 of Indian Penal Code. Even on the perusal of the statement recorded U/s. 313 of the appellant, the appellant was not present on the date of incident and therefore, he was falsely implicated in the commission of offence U/s. 307 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate submitted that the person who gave the FIR, is not an eye witness and therefore, there is contradiction in the version given in the FIR and the deposition adduced by the victim Dineshbhai S. Trivedi vide exh. 39 and therefore benefit of same is required to be given to the appellant. The learned Advocate submitted that save and except the deposition given by Shri Dienshbhai S. Trivedi no other independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution in order to prove the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. As the deposition adduced by Dineshbhai S. Trivedi does not get the necessary corroboration which it deserves the same cannot be relied upon to convict the appellant for the offence punishable U/s. 307 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate in the alternative submitted that even if it is believed that incident in question took place on 15.09.1999, then there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause the injury with CR.A/1837/2006 8/18 JUDGMENT the knife as alleged by prosecution. During the course of the heated argument, the appellant got infuriated and subsequently, caused the injury to the victim in the abdomen with the knife. The learned Advocate placing reliance on Section 307 as well as Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code submitted that at the most the appellant can be said to have committed the offence punishable U/s. 324 of the Indian Penal Code and not under 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 324 is pertaining to voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It is stated thereunder that “whoever except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhate, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” Considering the injuries caused to the victim the case of the appellant would fall U/s. 324 of the IPC and at the most he can be convicted for a maximum period of 3 years. Thus the learned Advocate CR.A/1837/2006 9/18 JUDGMENT submitted that the conviction of 5 years U/s. 307 of the IPC requires to be set aside and if the incident in question and the involvement of the appellant is believed then at the most he can be convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 324 of the IPC. The learned Advocate has also placed reliance on the injury certificate issued by Doctor of SSG Hospital, Vadodara produced at exh. 62,63 and 64 in support of the submission that only stab wound was caused to the victim and therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate further submitted that appellant has already undergone about more than half of the sentence imposed U/s. 307 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, considering the evidence on record of the case, it would be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the sentence which is already undergone by the appellant is imposed on him by this Court. The learned Advocate urged to consider the provision of Probation of Offender's Act and give the benefit of the same to the appellant as he had committed the offence for the first time. The learned Advocate submitted that as the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers from infirmity and the learned Judge has not taken into consideration the oral deposition as well as documentary evidence on record of the case in proper perspective, the appeal is CR.A/1837/2006 10/18 JUDGMENT required to be allowed and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Baroda is required to be quashed and set aside or in the alternative the sentence which is already undergone by the appellant U/s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code be imposed on him. 10.Learned Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgements. 1. Sukhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1999 S.C. 3883. 2. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1992 Criminal Law Journal, page 581. 3. Sarjuprasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 843. 4. Rajuwa Vs. State of M.P, reported in 2008 Cri. L.J., page 881. 11.The learned APP, Mr.A.J.Desai representing the State submitted that the victim Dineshbhai S.Trivedi who sustained serious injuries in the assault committed by the appellant, is examined vide exh. 39. On perusal of the deposition adduced by Dineshbhai S. Trivedi, it becomes clear that the incident took place on 15.09.1999 and because of the heated exchange between the appellant and the victim, the appellant gave knife blow to the victim on the left hand side of the abdomen and another blow on the hand of the victim. A grueling cross-examination was CR.A/1837/2006 11/18 JUDGMENT conducted of the victim but nothing turned out from the cross examination so as to dislodge the version given in the examination-in-chief. The learned A.P.P submitted that although it is not necessary for the prosecution to provide corroboration to the deposition adduced by Dineshbhai S. Trivedi but there is ample corroboration to the deposition adduced by Dienshbhai S. Trivedi in the form of the deposition adduced by Ashish Gopalbhai Shah vide exh. 40, Rajesh Jayantilal Chauhan vide exh.47 Harishkumar Somnath Gambhir vide exh.50, Amrutlal Gopalji Parmar vide exh. 52, Pravinkumar Purshottamdas Parekh vide exh. 53,Dr. Atul Prabhakar Gupte vide exh. 58, Dr. Bhikhubhai Manubhai Patel vide exh. 60 and the deposition adduced by Investigating Officer Juvansinh Gulabsinh Rathod P.W. 11 vide Exh. 65. The panchnama of the place of incident, panchnama of clothes which was seized from the victim, the panchnama of the person of the accused, the medical certificate issued by Hospital and the FSL report further supports the prosecution case indicating the involvement of appellant in the commission of offence. Thus, the learned A.P.P. submitted that even though there is no need to provide corroboration, there is ample corroboration to the version given by the victim Dineshbhai S. Trivedi vide exh. 39 to the present case. The learned A.P.P submitted that there was no reason CR.A/1837/2006 12/18 JUDGMENT to disbelieve or discard the versiongiven by Dineshbhai S. Trivedi at exh. 39 as he has no axe to grind against the appellant so as to falsely implicate him in the commission of offence U/s. 307 of Indian Penal Code. The learned A.P.P submitted that considering the oral deposition and the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable U/s. 307 of the IPC and no interference is called for in the appeal preferred by the appellant and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. P.P.Majmudar and learned A.P.P Mr. A.J.Desai at length and in great detail. I have also undertaken a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all the vital features of the case and the entire evidence on record of the case with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case. 13.The charge against the appellant is framed vide exh. 3 for the offence punishable U/s. 307 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act in order to bring home the guilt against the accused. The prosecution has examined the victim Dineshbhai S. Trivedi, PW. 1 vide exh. 39. On perusal of his deposition, it becomes clear that the incident in question took place on 15.09.1999. The victim was given knife CR.A/1837/2006 13/18 JUDGMENT blow by the appellant on the left hand side of the abdomen as well as on his hand. The version given by the victim in his deposition has not been dislodged in the cross-examination by the defence side. The complaint was given by Harishkumar Somnath Gambhir vide exh. 51. It has been stated in the complaint as to in what manner the assault was committed by the appellant on the victim. Although there is no need for corroboration to the version given by the victim, there is ample corroboration to his version in the form of deposition adduced by Dr. Bhikhubhai Patel, PW. 10 at exh. 60. He has deposed in his testimony that on 15.09.1999, one patient named Dineshbhai S. Trivedi was brought to the hospital. He had sustained knife injuries in the abdomen. Thereafter, the injury sustained by the victim has been elaborately narrated by the Doctor. He has further deposed in the testimony that the injuries could have been caused with knife and if the proper treatment was not given to the victim then it might have caused the death of the victim. The Doctor has also issued certificate narrating the injuries sustained by the victim, vide exh. 63, 63 and 64 to the present case. Thus, there is ample corroboration to the deposition adduced by the victim Dineshbhai S. Trivedi vide exh. 39. The prosecution has examined Ashish Gopalbhai Shah, PW.2 vide exh. 40. He was called as a panch- witness by the Investigating Officer on CR.A/1837/2006 14/18 JUDGMENT 18.09.1999. The accused has shown the weapon to the Investigating Officer in the presence of panch-witness and the panchnama with regard to weapon which was recovered, was also prepared in his presence. The panchnama of the place of incident was prepared in the presence of panch- witnesses. PW.4 Mahesh Ganpatrav Pawar is examined vide exh. 45 and he has deposed in his testimony that he was called as panch-witness on 16.09.1999. The place where the incident took place, was shown by Hitesh. When he went to the place, another panch-witness Sanjay was also present and the panchnama was prepared in his presence as well as in the presence of another panch-witness Sanjay Pawar. Rajesh Jayantilal Chauhan, PW-5 is examined vide exh. 47. He is also one of the panch-witness who was called by the Investigating Officer to prepare the panchnama with regard to the seizure of the clothes put on by the injured and the same was prepared in the presence of panch-witness. Amrutlal Gopalji Parmar, PW-7 at exh. 52 is examined by the prosecution in order to prove that the victim was assaulted in the abdomen with the knife. After sustaining injuries, the injured was taken to the clinic of Dr. Bhikhubhai Patel, where he was admitted as an indoor patient and given treatment. He has deposed in his testimony that when he met Booking Clerk named Hareshkumar Somnath Gambhir, he told him that one person named Gopal CR.A/1837/2006 15/18 JUDGMENT Someshwar Sharma assaulted Dineshbhai S. Trivedi with the knife. Dr. Atul Prabhakar Gupte, PW-9 at exh. 58 and the deposition given by Dr. Bhikhubhai Patel, PW-10 at exh. 60 further corroborates the version given by the victim at exh. 39 to the present case. The prosecution has, over and above the oral deposition adduced documentary evidence such as the panchnama of the place of incident vide exh. 46, the panchnama of the person of the accused vide exh. 44, the panchnama of the seizure of the clothes put on by the victim vide exh. 48, the medical certificate issued by Dr. Bhikubhai Patel vide exh. 62,63 and 64, the FSL report vide exh. 82 in support of the version given by the victim vide exh. 39. Thus considering the entire oral deposition and the documentary evidence, the learned Judge in my view has rightly come to the conclusion that the injured Dineshbhai S. Trivedi was assaulted by the appellant and thus committed the offence punishable U/s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 14.It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the punishment imposed on the appellant is harsh and if the ingredients of Section 307 as well as 324 are read in proper perspective and then at the most the appellant can be said to have committed the offence punishable U/s. 324 and not under 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, on careful CR.A/1837/2006 16/18 JUDGMENT consideration of the provisions of Section 324 and 307 it becomes amply clear that the appellant had committed the offence punishable U/s. 307 of Indian Penal Code and considering the ingredients of Sections 307 and 324, the provisions of 324 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the above, the contention raised by the learned Advocate that the appellant be convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 324 and not under 307 is liable to be rejected and therefore, the same is hereby rejected. 15.I have considered the alternative submission canvassed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the appellant has already undergone about more than half of the sentence imposed on him U/s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, it would be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the sentence which is already undergone by the appellant is imposed even U/s. 307 of the IPC. However, considering the manner in which the appellant is involved in the commission of offence and seriousness of the offence committed by the appellant, no lenient view can be taken in the matter and therefore, the contention raised by the learned Advocate does not merit consideration and therefore, the same is hereby rejected. CR.A/1837/2006 17/18 JUDGMENT 16.Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant be given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act as he has committed offence for the first time and since he is innocent person, benefit under the Probation of Offender Act be given to him. 17.Having carefully considered the nature of offence and the manner in which the offence is committed, I am of the view that the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be invoked in the present case and therefore, the contentions is liable to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. 18.Thus, considering the overall evidence on record of the case and the reasons assigned by the learned Judge while convicting the appellant for the offence punishable U/s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code I am of view that no interference is called for in the sentence imposed by the learned Judge U/s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the same is required to be upheld. 19.I have also considered the judgments cited by the learned Counsel representing the appellant. There is no dispute about the ratio of proportion laid down in those judgements. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record of the CR.A/1837/2006 18/18 JUDGMENT case, they are not applicable. 20.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is liable to fail and the same is hereby dismissed. (H.B.ANTANI,J.) JYOTI