Gujarat High Court
Manubhai Dahyabhai Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1789 of 2009
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2413 of 2009
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2414 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MANUBHAI DAHYABHAI VAGHELA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAYPRAKASH UMOT(3581) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR JAY MEHTA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 05/02/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK) Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined
1. All these three Criminal Appeals arising from one judgment and order dated 15.09.2009 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") rendered in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2009 whereby the accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 436 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment ("RI" for short) for two years and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default RI for two months. So far as the offence under Section 326, 337, 323, 504 r/w Section 114 of IPC is concerned, all the accused persons were acquitted. Against which, the State has preferred an Acquittal Appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 2414 2009 as well as Enhancement Appeal being Criminal Appeal No 2413 of 2009 and the accused persons have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1789 of 2009 whereby the State and accused persons have challenged the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by trial Court.
2. The Appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 2413 of 2009 came to be admitted by this Court vide order dated 21.4.2010 and it was ordered to be heard along with Criminal Appeal No. 1789 Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined of 2009 and Criminal Appeal 2414 of 2009.
3. The brief facts giving rise to present Appeals in nutshell, are as under:-
3.1 The complainant Laljibhai Shankarbhai Vaghela, residing at Chaklasi, Tabe Laxmipura, registered his complaint with Chaklasi Police Station against the accused persons, for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 337, 323, 504, 436 and 114 of IPC stating therein that on 7.06.2008 at about 4:30 p.m. the complainant returned to his home from Chaklasi, and he was passing in front of house of Taraben Pratapbhai Vaghela his Bhabhi. At that time, the accused no.1 Manubhai Dahyabhai, accused no.2 Hasmukh Manubhai and accused no.3 Raysingh Hathibhai came there, by keeping ago grudge about filling water. All the accused threw the stones on complainant and on seeing that one Bhagvanbhai Desaibhai Vaghela came there. The accused also throw the stone on him, so he received stone injuries on his right leg. 3.2 Thereafter, all the accused also set on fire to the house of Taraben. Thereafter, the complainant and his Bhabhi went to Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined the Police Station for lodging complaint against the accused persons and on the way, accused no.4 Ambalal Dahyabhai and accused no.5 Ashvinbhai Ambalal Vaghela met them and threatened them not to lodge any complaint against them and also used filthy language and abuses and inflicted stick blows on head of Taraben and because of the said blow she became unconscious and fell down on the floor. They also inflicted stick blows on left hand of complainant. On hearing the shout of complainant and Taraben, Mathurbhai Mangalbhai Vaghela came there, and rescued complainant and Taraben from further assault of the accused persons. Thereafter, the complainant and Taraben were taken to the Chaklasi Hospital, and then Taraben admitted to the Civil Hospital Nadiad for further treatment.
3.3 Thereafter, on the basis of FIR, the jurisdictional police machinery put in to motion and on completion of investigation the chargesheet was filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadiad. The said case was committed to the Court of Sessions and as per the provisions of 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, on completion of the formalities of committal, the case was registered as Sessions Case No.37 of Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined 2009. Thereafter, charge was framed against accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 337, 323, 504, 436 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has led evidence and has examined 12 witnesses as well as produced 12 documentary evidences on the record of the case.
3.4 At the conclusion of the trial, trial Court passed judgment and order dated 15.09.2009 in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2009, whereby the accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 436 r/w Section 114 of the IPC and ordered to undergo RI for two years and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default RI for two months. So far as the offence under Section 326, 337, 323, 504 r/w Section 114 of IPC is concerned, all the accused persons were acquitted. 3.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence the appellants accused and State of Gujarat have preferred these three Criminal Appeals Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined
4. This Court vide order dated 7.10.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.11662 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.1789 of 2009 enlarged the accused persons on bail pending hearing and till final disposal of the conviction appeal. The order dated 7.10.2009 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No.11662 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.1789 of 2009 reads as under:-
"1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, Mr.Jayaprakash Umot.
2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.K.V.Pandya for the respondent-State waives service of rule.
3. The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.436 read with Sec.114 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer RI for two years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer further two months simple imprisonment. Looking to the nature of offence and the sentence awarded, the application deserves to be allowed.
4. This application is accordingly allowed. Pending hearing and final disposal of appeal, the applicants are ordered to be released on same bail with fresh bond. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted."
5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. With consent of the parties, all the appeals are taken up for final disposal today.
Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr. Jayprakash Umot appearing on behalf of the convict original accused persons has submitted that the offence was committed in hit of moment and parties are from the same community and residing in same vicinity and after persuasion of their community leaders and the elders, ultimately the parties have settled the dispute outside the Court. In this regard, he has also produced Affidavits of Taraben Pratapbhai Vaghela as well as Laljibhai Shakarbhai Veghela dated 04.02.2025, which are taken on record. The said affidavits read as under:-
AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE VICTIM I, Taraben Pratapbhai Vaghela, Wife of Pratapbhai Gotabhai Vaghela, aged about 43 years, Occupation:
Agriculturist, Residing at Village: Laxmipura, Tabe Chaklasi, Taluka: Nadiad, District: Kheda, do hereby on solemn affirmation state as under:-
1. That, my brother-in-law namely Laljibhai Shankarbhai Vaghela (PW-5) has filed an F.I.R. being I-C.R. No.88 of 2008 registered with Chaklasi Police Station, District: Kheda for the offences punishable under sections 436, 324, 337, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the present appellants and two co-accused persons. That, subsequently, the case was numbered as Sessions Case No.37 of 2009 and vide judgement and order dated 15/09/2009 the Learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad was pleased to convict the present appellants for the offence punishable under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500 and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined for two months. That, Learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad was pleased to acquit the present appellants and two co-accused for the offences punishable under section 326, 337, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. That, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order dated 15/09/2009 the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Hon'ble Court.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 07/06/2008 at about 4.30 PM when the complainant/PW-5 was returning to his home, he found that the present appellants were pelting stones on PW-7 Taraben Pratapbhai Vaghela (present deponent) regarding earlier quarrel took place while filling water. It is the further case of the prosecution that the complainant along with PW-7 Taraben Pratapbhai Vaghela (present deponent) came outside and at that time the present appellants have set ablaze kachha roof (Chhaparu/Addalu) of PW-7 (present deponent) which was erected/constructed for keeping the crop. Infact, the kachha roof was erected adjacent to my house which was used for storing/keeping the crop only and not for residence. The deponent further submits that the appellants and the complainant and victim are near relative and resident of same village and as the dispute is personal in nature and because of the intervention of the elderly people of the community, settlement has arrived at between the parties. That, the date of incident is 07/06/2008 and since then the parties are residing peacefully and happily in the same village and till date no untoward incident has taken place.
3. In the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I at my free will, wish and desire stating on the oath that as the dispute between both the sides has been amicably settled.
Therefore, the deponent/complainant prays this Hon'ble Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 15/09/2009 passed by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No.37 of 2009.
I solemnly affirm that what is stated in paras 1 to 3 is true to my own knowledge and to the best of my information and belief and I believe the same to be true.
AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined I, Laljibhai Shankarbhai Vaghela, Son of Shankarbhai Vaghela, - aged about 47 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Residing at Village: Laxmipura, Tabe Chaklasi, Taluka:
Nadiad, District: Kheda, do hereby on solemn affirmation state as under:-
1. That, I have filed an F.I.R. being I-C.R. No.88 of 2008 registered with Chaklasi Police Station, District: Kheda for the offences punishable under sections 436, 324, 337, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the present appellants and two co-accused persons. That, subsequently, the case was numbered as Sessions Case No.37 of 2009 and vide judgement and order dated 15/09/2009 the Learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad was pleased to convict the present appellants for the offence punishable under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500 and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. That, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad was pleased to acquit the present appellants and two co-
accused for the offences punishable under section 326, 337, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. That, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order dated 15/09/2009 the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Hon'ble Court.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 07/06/2008 at about 4.30 PM when the present deponent/complainant was returning to his home, he found that the present appellants were pelting stones on PW-7 Taraben Pratapbhai Vaghela regarding earlier quarrel took place while filling water. It is the further case of the prosecution that the complainant along with PW-7 Taraben Pratapbhai Vaghela came outside and at that time the present appellants have set ablaze kachha roof (Chhaparu/Addalu) of PW-7 which was erected/constructed for keeping the crop. Infact, the kachha roof was erected adjacent to the house of PW-7 Taraben Pratapbhai Vaghela which was used for storing/keeping the crop only and not for residence. The deponent further submits that the appellants and the deponent/complainant and victim are near relative and resident of same village and as the dispute is personal in nature and because of the intervention of the elderly people of the community, settlement has arrived at between the parties. That, the date Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined of incident is 07/06/2008 and since then the parties residing peacefully and happily in the same village and till date no untoward incident has taken place.
3. In the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I at my free will, wish and desire stating on the oath that as the dispute between both the sides has been amicably settled. Therefore, the deponent/complainant prays this Hon'ble Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 15/09/2009 passed by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No.37 of 2009.
I solemnly affirm that what is stated in paras 1 to 3 is true to my own knowledge and to the best of my information and belief and I believe the same to be true."
7. It appears that during the pendency of the present Criminal Appeals and thereafter, till the date of final hearing of Appeal there is no any untoward incident between the two family members and therefore, the parties have urged before this Court that the impugned order may kindly be modified and/or passed appropriate order.
8. Today the complainant along with the injured as well as the accused are remained personally present before this Court and on inquiry from the Court to the accused, more particularly injured that whether they are entering into this settlement without there being any duress or pressure and they are entering into settlement without there being any compelling circumstances and in free will and wish then in Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined reply the accused and the injured have jointly submitted that there is no any grudge or grievance remained between the family members of the accused and the injured and they their own entered into the settlement.
9. In turn, the victim has also voluntarily accepted the apology while considering the age of the appellants at the time of incident and has forgive them and has come forward without any reservation to settle the dispute.
10. It is clear that Section 436 of the IPC is a non compoundable offence and no permission can be granted to record the compromise between the parties under Section 436 of IPC which reads as under:-
"436. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.--Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with 2 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
11. It is worthwhile to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2020) 18 SCC 777 and in the case of Sy.
Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined Azhar Sy. Kalandar v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2021 SC 4298
12. Considering the facts of the present case and the averments made in the appeals and the material placed on record as well as on perusal of the affidavit filed by the injured before this Court, it appears that the parties have amicable settled their dispute during the pendency of the appeals. As the offence under Section 436 of IPC the Court cannot grant permission to record the compromise arrived at between the parties. It appears from the record that almost 17 years have been passed to the date of incident and there is cordial relationship between the parties and there is no enmity or dispute between the complainant and the appellant.
Even after the release of the appellants on bail there is no allegation with regard to the breach of peace of tranquility and no other offence committed by the appellants. It has emerged from the record that the appellants are said to have been served out the sentence of one month when they are ordered to release on bail and therefore, the appellants remained inside the jail for a period of almost one month and more and also paid the fine.
Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined
13. Considering the overall facts and taking note of the settlement arrived at between the parties and considering the cordial relationship of the parties and also sentence undergone by the appellants, sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants under Section 436 of IPC is reduced from two years to the period already undergone by the accused appellants and fine of Rs.500/- is putforth.
14. In the case of Manjit Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraphs No.13 and 14 as under:-
"5. Section 307 I.P.C. is a non-compoundable offence. No permission can be granted to record the compromise between the parties. In Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 667, the Supreme Court of India has held that in a non-compoundable offence the compromise entered into between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind for considering the quantum of sentence. In Paras (13) and (14) of the judgment in Ishwar Singh (supra) this Court has held as under:
"13. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255, Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 671, this Court, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant accused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But it was also stated that in Mahesh Chand Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Supp. SCC 681 such offence was ordered to be compounded.
14. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind."
As noted earlier, in the present case the appellant accused, Manjit Singh, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years. The appellant is said to have served seventeen months of imprisonment. Taking note of the compromise entered into between the parties and considering the relationship of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case and also the sentence undergone by the appellant accused, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. is reduced from five years/two years to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is ordered to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the fine amount of Rs.50,000/- imposed upon the appellant is set aside. If the said fine amount has already been paid, the same shall be refunded to the appellant- Manjit Singh."
15. In the case of Sy. Azhar S. Kalandar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraphs No.11 to 14 as under:-
"11. In almost the same circumstances which have been noticed by us, a three Judge Bench of this Court in a recent Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined judgment in Murali Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2021(1) SCC 726 where the parties decided to forgive their past and live amicably, this Court has come to their rescue by interfering in the quantum of sentence which obviously is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. but has interfered since there is no minimum sentence prescribed. This Court in Murali(supra), has taken note of the judgment of this Court in Ram Pujan and Others Vs. State of U.P., 1973(2) SCC 456 which was further followed by this Court in Ishwar Singh Vs. State of M.P .3 and the later decisions as referred to in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment has taken note of the compromise between the parties to reduce the sentence of the convicts even in serious noncompoundable offences. The relevant paras are as follows:
"11. In later decisions including in Ram Lal v. State of J&K (1999) 2 SCC 213; Bankat v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 343; Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 11 SCC 226; Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala (2015) 11 SCC 137;
Shankar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 5 SCC 166, this Court has taken note of the compromise between parties to reduce the sentence of the convicts even in serious noncompoundable offences.
12. Given this position of law and the peculiar circumstances arising out of subsequent events, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of sentences awarded to the appellants. We say so because: first, the parties to the dispute have mutually buried their hatchet. The separate affidavit of the victim inspires confidence that the apology has voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of time and owing to the maturity brought about by age. There is no question of the settlement being as a result of any coercion or inducement. Considering that the parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence."
Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined
12. Taking into consideration the facts of the instant case and the circumstances arising out of the subsequent events, in our opinion, it is a fit case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant. We have recorded our satisfaction, based on the reasons, that the parties to the dispute have mutually settled their disputes and buried their past.
13. The joint affidavit inspires confidence that the apology as tendered by the appellant has voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of time and is not a result of any coercion or inducement. Considering that they are residing in the same village and are peacefully residing after the uncalled for incident has taken place, in our view, this appears to be a fit case for reduction of sentence.
14. Considering the overall facts on record and other mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed including the nature of injury, period during which he remained under medical treatment, mental agony which the victim suffered and also the compromise entered into between the parties, while upholding conviction under Section 307 IPC, we deem it appropriate to reduce the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant to five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/and in default of payment of fine shall suffer further three months' rigorous imprisonment. Ordered accordingly."
16. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned advocates of both the sides and the material placed on record and the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court appeal deserves to be allowed in part and the impugned judgment and order of conviction deserves to be modified to the extent.
Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined
17. In present case, more than 17 years have elapsed and the parties have settled in their life. Therefore, maintaining the judgment, the interest of justice will be sub-served if the punishment of two years is substituted by the period already undergone by the appellants. This particular approach is adopted in view of peculiar facts of the case and also considering long lapse of time.
18. In view of above, the ends of justice would meet if the impugned judgment is suitably modified. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 1789 of 2009 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2009 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad rendered in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2009 is hereby modified to the following extent.
19. The rigorous imprisonment imposed upon the appellants for offence under Section 436 of the IPC shall be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants and the fine of Rs.500/- is putforth. As the accused persons are on bail, they need not surrender to the jail authority. The bail and bail bond Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1789/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined stands cancelled. Surety, if any, shall stand discharged.
Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.
20. For the foregoing reasons the Criminal Appeals filed by the State of Gujarat being Criminal Appeal No.2413 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No.2414 of 2009 are also disposed of.
Sd/-
(ILESH J. VORA,J) Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 00:55:50 IST 2025