IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No 202 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- PARVEZALAM ABDUL KHALIF Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1999 MR JM BUDDHBHATTI for Petitioner No. 1 THROUGH JAIL for Petitioner No. 1 MS HANSA PUNANI Ld. APP for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date of decision: 07/03/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard learned counsel Mr. Buddhbhatti for the appellant and Ms Hansaben Punani learned APP for the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the case of prosecution and the relevant part of the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 186/1997. During the course of oral submissions, Mr. Buddhbhatti has submitted that on merits the appellant has limited case, so he may not argue about the guilt established, but on the point of sentence, error committed by the learned Sessions Judge should be corrected by this Court. Looking to the nature of the evidence led by prosecution Mr. Buddhbhati has rightly argued that this is not a case of dowry death. The demand of dowry or any valuable articles from the In-laws side brought on record by prosecution seems to be after thought and by way of material improvements. The marriage span between the present appellant and the deceased Anishabibi was of 4 years approximately and because of mental frame and emotional approach to the life, she had committed suicide. The fact that 4 accused out of 5, have been acquitted by the trial court than the present appellant ought not to have been imposed the harsh punishment. Period of imprisonment is very relevant irrespective whether it is R/I or S/I. The deterrent punishment in each case is not required. The appellant was not granted bail pending trial. The complainant side had tried to book each of the family members of the present appellant. The sufferings of the appellant and his family members who were also accused could have been considered by the trial court while imposing the substantive sentence. The trial court could have awarded substantive sentence for a period of 3 or 4 years even than the sentiment of complainant could have been taken care of. The Court is supposed to take care of; (i) the sentiments of the victim side; (ii) the provisions prescribed for punishment; (iii) adequacy in reference to totality, and; (iv) trend of superior courts in similar type of cases, simultaneously. Ld. APP Ms. Punani has also fairly submitted that the totality of facts and circumstances of the case on hand, this court can reduce the substantive sentence to some extent but it should not be reduced by more than a year or two. According to this court, the quantum of punishment imposed for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of IPC by the trial court requires interference. It is important to mention that the learned counsel for the appellant has not argued the appeal on merits qua the order of conviction recorded by the trial court. What he has seriously assailed is with regard to the quantum part of punishment imposed by the trial court and the court has found that there is substance in the submission of Mr. Buddhbhatti and, therefore, this appeal is required to be allowed partly. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment dated 10.7.98 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 186 of 1997 in so far as holding appellant-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentencing him to suffer S/I for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/, I/d to under go S/I for 4 months, is hereby confirmed. The order of conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under sec. 306 of IPC is hereby confirmed. However, the order imposing sentence to suffer S/I for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/, I/d. to undergo S/I for 4 months for the offence punishable under sec. 306 of IPC is hereby altered and modified to the effect that the appellant is ordered to undergo S/I for 5 years and and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/, in default, S/I for 4 months. It is further ordered that substantive sentences to run concurrently and set-off also be given to the appellant-accused. (C.K. BUCH, J.) mandora/