CR.A/433/1987 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 433 of 1987 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 581 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 ? ================================================= MEMON JUMA UMAR & 1 - Appellants Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent ================================================= Appearance : In CR.A: No. 433 of 1987 MR AD SHAH for Appellants : 1 - 2. MR PRADIP D. BHATE, LD. APP for Opponent : Appearance In CR.A. No. 581 of 1987 MR PRADIP D. BHATE, LD. APP for State MR AD SHAH, LD ADVOCATE for Opponents: ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 01/08/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) CR.A/433/1987 2/3 JUDGMENT 1. Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 1987 is filed by the original accused against the judgment of conviction, and Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 1987 filed by the State is for enhancement of sentence, passed by the Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1985 dated 16/5/1987. 2. Learned counsel Mr. Shah in Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 1987 submits that it is a case of free fight wherein both the parties sustained injuries and an accused of opposite party Ravjibhai Arjanbhai has been killed by sharp cutting weapon. Since it was a case of free fight Sessions Judge awarded sentence under section 326 and 323 of I.P. Code with other sections which are of lower magnitute and submits that at this distance of time the sentence already undergone by the accused may be treated as sufficient & substantive but the fine may be enhanced. Learned APP however submits that the sentence be enhanced as the accused have committed serious offence and one person has lost his life. 3. Heard learned counsels for the parties. We are of the opinion that at this distance of time when the occurrence had taken place in year 1985 it would not be appropriate to send the accused behind the bars. Thus the sentence already undergone by the accused are considered to be sufficeint and substantive sentence. However the accused are saddled with fine of Rs.2,500=00 each. In case of fine is not deposited, for default further sentence will be awarded, on being notified to us. Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 1987 filed by the accused is dismissed for the reasons that the nature of weapons as used in a case where both the parites entangled in fight were prosecuted by each other, a higher offence is not reasonably seem to be made out. However the appellants/accused shall CR.A/433/1987 3/3 JUDGMENT pay the fine as above within a period of six weeks. Bail bonds stand cancelled. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 1987 filed by the State is dismissed. [ BHAGWATI PRASAD, J ] [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn