Gujarat High Court
Jiva Ranmal Keshwala vs State Of Gujarat on 22 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/39/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 39 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
JIVA RANMAL KESHWALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR EE SAIYED(725) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SIKANDER SAIYED(3458) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ROHANKUMAR RAVAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HEMANT RAVAL for the complainant
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment and order of conviction dated 31.12.2012 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Sessions Case no.18 of 2011. The learned Judge sentenced the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- with the default stipulation of three months simple imprisonment. For the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, sentence of three years simple imprisonment and fine of Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/39/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Rs.1,500/- and in default of payment of fine, three months imprisonment is imposed.
2. Today, the complainant - Bhikhubhai Nathabhai Keshwala has filed an affidavit for permission to compound the offences through learned advocate Mr. Hemant Raval who proposes to file Vakalatnama. Let his Vakalatnama be accepted. Advocate Mr. Raval has submitted that the relation between the injured and the appellant is of uncle and nephew. The appellant at that time was 22 years old. This Court had verified from the complainant and he states that the issue was very minor. However, he sustained the injury of fracture and now for better development and future of the appellant, he has proposed to settle the matter and thus, has filed the affidavit.
3. The conviction is under Sections 324 and 325 IPC. The facts as could be noted is that on 25.2.2011 at about 10.45, at the outskirts of Ranavav Palasar, there was field of complainant with the lattice at the fence for ingress and egress on the road. The motorcycle of the complainant was parked on the road. The accused had asked the complainant not to keep the motorcycle on the road and in Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/39/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined aggression by abusing the complainant, gave a blow on the head with the stick formed of Gundi plant. The complainant states that to resist the aggression, the complainant raised his hand and the stick caused fracture on the left hand and injury on the left side of the head.
4. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) considers Section 325 as compoundable with the permission of the Court and the person who is hurt can compound the offence. Since the complainant urged the Court to compound the offence and as Section 325 becomes compoundable, with the permission of the Court, considering the relation and the nature of quarrel, which arose for the minor issue, permission to compound Section 325 is granted.
5. Learned APP Mr. Rohankumar Raval has submitted that over and above the fracture on the hand, there is 2 CLWs on the vital region and because of that, the complainant as an injured had to take stitches. Learned APP stated that Section 324 IPC is not compoundable.
6. Countering the arguments, Mr. Sikandar Saiyed, learned Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/39/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined advocate for the appellant has submitted that earlier prior to 2009 to the amendment in Section 320 Cr.P.C., Section 324 was compoundable by the person to whom the hurt was caused. Advocate Mr. Saiyed has submitted that the learned Judge was required to consider the description of the weapon, which was used, which is a stick from Gundi plant.
6.1. Advocate Mr. Saiyed has relied upon the decision in the case of Sathiyamoorthy v. State, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no.1169 of 2014 as well as the decision in the case of Khursheed & Ors. v. State of U.P. passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no.1302 of 2007 to buttress his submission for compounding the offence.
7. The circumference of stick is five inch and the length is three ft. and seven inch. The observation which has been made to the injury that it can be sustained by hard and blunt substance. Section 324 refers to the injury by an instrument, which could be used for shooting, stabbing or cutting or any instrument, which can be used for an offence as a weapon likely to cause death. Here the injury Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/39/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined sustained has not been described as one which could cause death and the description of the article five which is the stick is identified for the injury. The certificate at Exh.24 with the deposition of the Doctor shows that the injury could be by hard and blunt substance. The certificate also states that the head injury was simple and the grievous hurt is about the fracture of the hand. Considering the description of instrument which has been observed and identified, shall not be described as shooting, stabbing or cutting weapon and the injury sustained on the head being simple, there would not be any intention of the accused to cause any grievous injury on the head for any danger of causing death.
8. This Court does not find any reason to upheld the conviction under Section 324 since the injury on the head was simple in nature which was not likely to cause any death and hence, the conviction under Section 324 is set aside and equally the conviction under Section 325 is also set aside as being compounded.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/39/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the Trial Court convicting the accused is quashed and set aside. R & P to be sent back to the concerned Court.
(GITA GOPI,J) Maulik Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:18:15 IST 2025