CR.A/789/1995 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 789 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ========================================= 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 Versus GAFUR @ UMAKANT SHANABHAI AND OTHERS ========================================= Appearance : MS FALGUNI PATEL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant MR CG SHARMA for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 None for Respondent Nos.3-5 and 7-9 ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 14/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr.C.G.Sharma, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6. 2. The appeal was heard and decided by judgment and order CR.A/789/1995 2/5 JUDGMENT dated 20.11.2007. The appeal was allowed and the judgment and order dated 15.04.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 3rd Court, Vadodara in Criminal Case No.430 of 1991 was set aside. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 were held guilty for offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Notice was issued to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 for hearing them on quantum of punishment. In response to the said notice, the accused have appeared through learned advocate Mr.C.G.Sharma. 3. On the last occasion, i.e. on 29.02.2008 learned advocate Mr.C.G.Sharma for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 had tendered affidavits of Gafurbhai @ Umakant Shanabhai, Hasmukhbhai Shanabhai and Dineshbhai Ashabhai. They had remained present before the Court. The complainant Maheshbhai Shankarbhai Patel and injured Maganbhai Shankarbhai Patel had also remained present before the Court. The complainant and the injured concurred with the contents of the affidavits to a limited extent that the parties do not have any surviving dispute amongst themselves. It was also stated that the complainant and the injured have shifted their residence to Vadodara and therefore there is no possibility of any recurrence of any such event. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Sharma relied upon following decisions: I. Decision of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Suraj Singh and Another Vs. State, reported in 2000 CRI. L.J. 1544. CR.A/789/1995 3/5 JUDGMENT II. Decision of the Madras High Court in the matter of Chellappa Vs. The State, reported in 2000 CRI. L.J. 1276. III.Decision in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Gurunath and Another, reported in 2000 CRI. L.J. 1192. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Sharma submitted that the view taken by the Madras High Court in the aforesaid decision is required to be taken to serve the interest of justice. He submitted that taking into consideration the fact that Criminal Case was that of the year 1991 and the same was decided in the year 1995 and that the appeal is heard and decided in the year 2007 and after all these years, the parties do not have any surviving grievance, it will be in the fitness of things if respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 herein are punished with fine only, without asking them to undergo any imprisonment. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Sharma also invited attention of the Court to peculiar facts of the present case. In the case of Gafurbhai @ Umakant Shanabhai – original accused No.1, it is stated that he was of 24 years of age at the time of incident; that he is working as a labourer in Baroda Dairy; that he is having one son and three daughters and a widowed mother and the responsibility of maintaining these family members is that of the deponent. He has stated that the in fact, the complainant CR.A/789/1995 4/5 JUDGMENT and the injured are his uncles. He has stated that after the incident in question, no other incident has taken place and they have cordial relations with the complainant and the injured. So far as Hasmukhbhai Shanabhai – original accused No.2 is concerned, he has stated that he was 29 years of age at the time of incident; that he is working as labourer in Baroda Dairy; that he is having one son and three daughters and widowed mother and the responsibility of maintaining these family members is that of the deponent. He has stated that since the incident in question, no other incident has taken place and they have smooth relations with the complainant and the injured. He requests that if a fine of token amount is imposed, that will be in the fitness of things and will serve the ends of justice. In the case of Dineshbhai Ashabhai – original accused No.6, it is stated that his family consists of three younger brothers, one sister and an aged mother and responsibility of maintaining these family members is on the deponent. He has also stated that he was of 20 years of age at the time of incident and that since 1990 till date, no other incident had taken place, not only with the complainant but even with any other party also in the village. He has given assurance to the Court that he will see to it that in future also, no such incident takes place. He submitted that the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the stress caused by the same be treated as sufficient punishment to the deponent. He submitted CR.A/789/1995 5/5 JUDGMENT that taking into consideration the economic condition, fine, if any be imposed only of a token amount. 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6, acquittal of whose is quashed and set aside by allowing the appeal of the State and they are convicted for the offence under Section 326, of the Indian Penal Code, are punished with fine of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only), each. The conviction is maintained. The amount of fine be deposited with the trial Court within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. Bail bonds stand cancelled. (RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) *Shitole