Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhalabhai Pratapbhai Parmar on 24 February, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1367/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ENHANCEMENT) NO. 1367 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHALABHAI PRATAPBHAI PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY MEHTA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 24/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. This enhancement appeal is preferred by the State under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Vide judgment and order of sentence dated 30.05.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.63 of 2012, the Sessions Judge, Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 22:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1367/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined Kheda at Nadiad convicted and sentenced the respondent Bhalabhai Pratapbhai Parmar for the offences punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.
3. The State has filed this enhancement appeal mainly on the ground that the sentence imposed is grossly inadequate and the Court below has adopted a lenient view despite of the seriousness of the offence.
4. The respondent - accused Bhalabhai Parmar and his three family members viz. Champaben Pratapbhai, Shardaben Bhalabhai, and Vinesh Bhalabhai came to be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 325, 504 read with Section 114 of the IPC. At the end of the trial, the Court below acquitted the accused nos.2 to 4 from all the charges, however, the respondent accused Bhalabhai was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, instead of Section 302 of the IPC.
5. Facts in brief leading to file this enhancement appeal are as under:
5.1 The accused and the complainant PW:1 Ramesh Parmar are related to each other and living adjacent to each other at Village Padva, Balasinor, Dist.: Kheda. On 22.04.2012, at about 06:30 p.m., according to the case of the prosecution, the respondent accused Bhalabhai caused Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 22:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1367/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined fatal injuries to the wife of PW:1, Radhaben, by using a cricket bat and the blow was inflicted on the head of the deceased. Prior to the incident, the altercation with the PW:1 took place on the issue of maintaining illicit relationship by the PW:1 with daughter in law of the respondent accused.
According to the say of PW:1, the respondent accused beaten up him as he was suspecting the illicit relationship with the daughter in law. On account of the said altercation, the PW:1 lodged an FIR for causing voluntary injuries against the respondent accused and police was in search of the respondent accused. On the day of incident i.e. 24.04.2012, again the altercation took place between the respondent accused and PW:1 near the Panshop of the village. Thereafter, the respondent accused came at his house and suddenly, taking the cricket bat in his hand, in the heat of passions, upon sudden quarrel assaulted the deceased Radhaben with cricket bat. It is further alleged that the accused Champaben Pratapbhai, the mother of the respondent accused and accused Shardaben Bhalabhai along with Vinesh Bhalabhai, assaulted the PW;1 husband of the deceased and his mother Divaben (PW:15). Deceased after the incident, became unconscious and was taken to private clinic of Dr.Bharat Lalabhai (PW:11), and then, referred to Civil Hospital, Balasinor. On account of the serious injuries suffered by deceased Radhaben, she was admitted in the private hospital viz. Nidhi Hospital at Ahmedabad where she succumbed to her injuries on 24.04.2012. The PW:1 being a husband of the deceased Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 22:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1367/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined lodged an FIR, against the four persons including the present respondent - accused.
5.2 Pursuant to the FIR, the investigation had been entrusted to PW:18 Dashrathsinh Chavda as well as PW:23 Vimal Gamit. During the investigation, the I.O. took visit the place of occurrence and drew the panchnama and collected the necessary samples for FSL purpose. He also recorded the statement of witnesses. He also arrested the accused involved in the offence, recovered the weapon cricket bat and stump allegedly used by the accused. The I.O. then obtained the treatment case papers as well as the postmorterm note and sent the seized articles for chemical analysis and after receiving the report thereof, chargesheet was led before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who committed case to the concerned Sessions Court.
6. After due framing of charges and upon accused pleaded not guilty, trial commenced before the Sessions Court at Nadiad. Prosecution, in order to prove the charge examined 23 witnesses and exhibited 38 documents.
Oral evidence PW 1 - Exh. 25 Rameshbhai Adabhai Parmar, Complainant PW 2 - Exh. 27 Shanabhai Gandabhai Parmar, panch witness PW 3 - Exh. 31 Bhathibhai Mohanbhai Parmar, panch witness PW 4 - Exh. 32 Abdulrasid Mustufbhai Sheikh, panch witness PW 5 - Exh. 37 Bharatbhai Tulsibhai Patel, panch witness Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 22:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1367/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined PW 6 - Exh. 39 Surajben Bhalabhai Parmar, panch witness PW 7 - Exh. 40 Sharmishthaben Somabhai Parmar, panch witness PW 8 - Exh. 41 Prabhatbhai Dalabhai Chauhan, panch witness PW 9 - Exh. 43 Jashwantbhai Shanabhai Parmar, panch witness PW 10 - Exh. 44 Baluben Bhalabhai Thakor, panch witness PW 11 - Exh. 46 Dr. Bharatbhai Lalabhai Khant, Medical officer PW 12 - Exh. 51 Dr. Jyoti Govindbhai Amin, medical officer PW 13 - Exh. 55 Dr. Milan Jayantibhai Prajapati, medical officer PW 14 - Exh. 59 Dr. Satyajit Bhimrao Dixit, medical officer PW 15 - Exh. 64 Diwaben Adesingh Parmar PW 16 - Exh. 67 Jayaben Rakeshkumar Gohil PW 17 - Exh. 68 Adabhai Punjabhai Parmar PW 18 - Exh. 69 Dashrathsinh Pravinsinh Chavda, investigation officer PW 19 - Exh. 71 Vikramsinh Bhikhubha Zala PW 20 - Exh. 74 Sursinhbhai Valabhai Bhamat PW 21 - Exh. 76 Dr. Kalpesh Somchandbhai Kotaria, medical officer PW 22 - Exh. 81 Ambalal Balabhai Mayavanshi PW 23 - Exh. 85 Vimalkumar Parsottambhai Gamit, investigation officer Documentary evidence Exh. 26 Complaint Exh. 28, 29 Panch slips Exh. 30 Panchanama of scene of offence Exh. 33 to Panch slips 35 Exh. 36 Panchanama of seizure of clothes worn by Radhaben Rameshbhai Exh. 38 Inquest Panchanama Exh. 42 Panchanama of physical examination of accused Exh. 45 Panchanama of physical examination of accused Exh. 47 Medical certificate of Radhaben Rameshbhai issued by Sagar Surgical Hospital Exh. 48 Medical certificate of Diwaben Adesingh Parmar Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 22:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1367/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined issued by Sagar Surgical Hospital Exh. 49 Medical certificate of Rameshbhai Adesingh Parmar issued by Sagar Surgical Hospital Exh. 52 Original Medico-Legal certificate of Rameshbhai Adesingh Parmar Exh. 56 Case papers of Radhaben Rameshbhai Parmar issued by Nidhi Hospital Exh. 57 Vardhi noted by Police Station Officer, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad Exh. 60 Note of treating injuries of Radhaben Rameshbhai issued by Nidhi Hospital Exh. 61 Note made by Dr. Dixit regarding treatment of Radhaben Rameshbhai Exh. 72 Note by Police Station Officer, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad regarding admission of Radhaben Rameshbhai in ICU in semi- unconscious state Exh. 73 Letter by PSI, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad Exh. 77 Yadi by Police Inspector, Balasinor for Post-
mortem and collection of blood sample from dead body of Radhaben Rameshbhai Exh. 78 Post-mortem report Exh. 79 Certificate of cause of death Exh. 80 Medical certificate of Diwaben Adesingh Parmar issued by Vatrak General Hospital Exh. 82 True copy of Extract dated 23.04.2012 in Station Diary of Balasinor Police Station Exh. 86 Yadi for drawing map of scene of offence Exh. 87 Map of scene of offence Exh. 88 Yadi for sending articles to FSL for analysis Exh. 89 FSL receipt Exh. 90 Report by Nadiad FSL mobile van Exh. 91 Yadi by FSL to Police inspector, Balasinor Exh. 92 FSL report Exh. 93 Serological report Exh. 94 Carbon copy of handing over dead body Exh.95 Pursis of closure of oral and documentary evidence of prosecution.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the respondent accused along with three persons were Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 22:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1367/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., to which, they stated that, they were innocent of all charges level and had been falsely implicated the entire family for no reason.
8. Though opportunity was extended, no evidence was tendered from the side of the respondent accused.
9. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, relying principally on the deposition of PW:1, PW:15 and considering the medical evidence on record found the respondent accused guilty of the offence, culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. The Court below in absence of any acceptable and cogent evidence, for causing voluntary injuries to the witnesses acquitted the family members of the respondent accused i.e. accused nos.2 to 4 from all the charges.
10. Being dissatisfied with the sentence, the State has come up with the present appeal.
11. Mr.Jay Mehta Bhatt, learned APP appearing for the appellant - State, has submitted that the Court below has shown undue leniency while sentencing the respondent accused and the manner in which, the deceased was fatally injured, the sentence ought to have awarded at least 10 years with fine and therefore, while exercising discretion, the Court below has not considered the settled principle on the issue of sentencing policy and has committed an error of Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 22:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1367/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined law while imposing a meagre sentence.
12. On the other hand, Mr.Parthiv Bhatt, learned advocate, opposing the contentions, has submitted that the question of sentence is a matter of discretion and in the facts of present case, the Court below has assigned sufficient reasons while sentencing the respondent accuse and 5 years of jail prison, in the background of the present case cannot be termed to be grossly inadequate. In such circumstances, he prays that no case is made out warranting interfere with the sentence awarded by the Court below.
13. It is settled legal position of law that the question of sentence is a matter of discretion and when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines, the Appellate Court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused person, except for very strong reasons which must be disclosed on the face of the judgment. The sentence imposed by the Trial Court should not be lightly interfered with and should not be enhanced unless the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion on entire evidence that the sentence is inadequate.
14. In light of the settled position of law and applying to the same facts of present case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the sentence imposed. The respondent accused and the family of the deceased are related to each other and they are living in the same village. The incident Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 22:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1367/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined took place because the appellant was having doubt about the illicit relationship allegedly maintained by the PW:1 with his daughter in law. Prior to the incident, the respondent - accused scolded the PW:1 and cautioned him to maintain distance with his daughter in law. The PW:1 and in his cross examination admitted that before half an hour of the incident, this scuffle took place near Panshop of the village which led to occurrence to the said incident. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, we are of the view that out of five years of jail imprisonment, the respondent - accused had undergone 4 years, 11 months and 3 days. The Court below while taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, thought it fit to impose 5 years imprisonment and in our opinion, the same cannot be grossly inadequate and therefore, the discretion exercised by the Trial Court does not require.
15. For the aforementioned reasons, the present enhancement appeal lacks merits and the same deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) RAkesh Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by RAKESH M KOSHTI(HC00950) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 24 22:26:20 IST 2025