IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No 310 of 2000 with CRIMINAL APPEAL No 311 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.R.VYAS and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF GUJARAT Versus KHERABHAI BHIKHABHAI MANEK -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR AJ DESAI, APP for appellant in both the appeals -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE K.R.VYAS and MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA Date of decision: 21/04/2001 COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE K.R.VYAS) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar by judgment and order dated 27-1-2000 passed in Sessions Case No.39 of 1997 and 47 of 1997 convicted accused No.1-Shanabha Ranabha Hindu Vadher for the offence punishable under Sec.307 and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment already undergone by him (i.e. from 27-12-1996 to 27-1-2000). The learned Judge acquitted accused No.2-Kherabha Bhikhabha Manek for the offences punishable under Secs.307, 324, 323 read with 114 of IPC. The State has preferred these two appeals challenging the order of acquittal of accused No.2 and order of sentence passed against accused No.1. After having heard Mr.A.J.Desai, learned APP and after having gone through the relevant evidence on record, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for. In our opinion, learned trial Judge was justified in passing the order of acquittal in favour of the accused No.2. Learned Judge was also justified in taking into consideration the circumstances stated by him in passing the order of sentence against accused No.1. In our opinion, accused No.1 having remained in jail for three years, it cannot be contended that a lenient view is taken in the matter. There being no substance, these two appeals are dismissed summarily. (K.R.Vyas,J.) (R.P.Dholakia,J.) radhan/