CR.A/794/2001 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 794 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 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 ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= BHARATBHAI MADHABHAI CHAUHAN - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR. Mankad for Mr. UM SHASTRI for Appellant(s) : 1, Mr. Mukesh Patel, APP, for the respondent State ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 26/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CR.A/794/2001 2/3 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) The only point urged in the appeal is not disputing the incident but challenging the nature of conviction. The date of incident is 19.9.2006 and death has occurred on 16.10.2006. The cause of death is septicaemia shock resulting from the injury inflicted by the accused. The deceased was taken out of the hospital against medical advice. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant there was a contributory negligence on the part of the family of the deceased in not getting treatment completely. Learned A.P.P. agrees to all those facts yet he states that it was the husband who had caused the injury and he had the intention of causing death of the deceased. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case. The death has occurred nearly 26 days after the incident and direct result of the death is not the injury but septicaemia which developed. Thus, the intention to kill as such as defined under clause thirdly to Section 300 of the IPC is not seen. However, the case may be covered under Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC. The accused is in jail for nearly 12 years. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the CR.A/794/2001 3/3 JUDGMENT accused having remained in jail for a long period of nearly 12 years, the period already undergone would be sufficient to serve the ends of justice. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of conviction dated 13.9.2001 is modified. The conviction of the accused appellant is altered from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-I of IPC. The substantive sentence already undergone by the accused is considered as sufficient to meet the ends of justice. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J) (BANKIN N. MEHTA, J) (pkn)