Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Ramesh Ramchandra Patil on 24 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 456 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMESH RAMCHANDRA PATIL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHAN RAVAL APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 24/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'Cr.P.C.') making a prayer for enhancing the sentence of accused No.1, who was convicted under Section 392 of IPC and ordered to be sentenced for four years and four months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine further Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:44:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined three months simple imprisonment. The accused No.1 was also ordered to undergo seven days rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of IPC and fine of Rs.500/- with the default stipulation of further seven days simple imprisonment.
2. During the course of trial accused No.2 died and the trial stood abated qua him. The trial was conducted under Section 397, 120B and 506(2) of IPC. The accused No.1 was acquitted for the offence under Section 120B of IPC.
3. The judgment records that the accused No.1 had already undergone four years and three months imprisonment. The jail remarks was called for. Today, learned APP has produced on record the jail remarks of Deputy Superintendent, Vadodara Central Jail in connection to accused No.1 - Ramesh Ramchandra Patil. The same is ordered to be taken on record. The jail remarks shows that accused No.1 - Ramesh Ramchandra Patil had already undergone sentence of four years four months and five days of imprisonment.
4. The facts of the case, as noticed can be succinctly laid down hereunder:
Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:44:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined 4.1 The complainant - Balwantray Krushnalal Shukla, residing at Flat Nos.17 and 18, Ramkrupa Apartment, Abrama, Dharampur, Valsad, is a practicing advocate at Labour Court, Valsad. On 20.04.2001 at about 11:00 p.m., the complainant and his wife were getting ready to go to the Labour Court, at that time, mother of the complainant, Kamlaben, domestic servant Savitaben and another servant Jashuben were present there.
4.2 It was stated that the car of the complainant met with an accident ten days prior and therefore, complainant and his wife were to proceed to Court hiring a rickshaw, at that time, rickshaw driver had come and was standing on the door.
Thereupon, two unknown persons aged about 20 to 25 years, one with red shirt and another with white shirt had come there. The person wearing the red shirt told the complainant that they came there to meet him, as they were terminated from the Glass Factory, and they wanted to take the advice from the complainant. Therefore, the complainant, as was ready to go to the Court and found them as unknown persons, denied for any conversation. However, they told the complainant that they had come from far away place. In turn, Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:44:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined complainant gave his card and informed them that his telephone number is in the visiting card and they could give a ring to him. The complainant thereafter, with his wife had gone to the Labour Court by rickshaw and returned back home at 2:00 p.m. 4.3 It is stated that about 5:30 p.m., one of the unknown person phoned the complainant and requested to meet the complainant personally. The complainant thereafter, gave them an appointment, and at about 7.15 p.m., both the unknown persons came to the house and as the door of the house was closed from inside, they ranged the door-bell. The wife of the complainant opened the door and since she had seen both the unknown persons, who had come in the morning, she went to the kitchen to call the complainant. It was stated that during this period, both the unknown persons entered the house and closed the door from inside and when complainant and his wife came to drawing room, both unknown persons unexpectedly attacked them. One of them wearing red shirt took out a knife from his pocket and put at the neck of the complainant and another person removed the knife and put it at the neck of wife of the complainant. The Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:44:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined complainant caught hold the hand of that person and thereafter, scuffle ensued and as a result complainant sustained injuries on his right cheek, one finger of the left hand and on the left palm.
4.4 It is stated that another person forcibly pinned down the wife of the complainant on the ground. One of them forced the complainant to sit on the Sofaset under the fear by placing the knife on the neck of the complainant. The complainant offered them to take whatever they want. The complainant offered them to take the gold locket, which was owned by him worth Rs.5,000/- and also a 'Rudraksha Mala'. In spite of that, the unknown persons asked the complainant for other jewellery and money and took the complainant and his wife to the bedroom, opened the store-well lying in the bedroom, the wife of the complainant gave away 'Mangalsutra' worth Rs.13,000/- and other ornaments to those persons. 4.5 It is also stated that they forcibly took away cash of Rs.13,000/-. Thereafter, unknown persons took the complainant and his wife near bathroom and disconnected the telephone line. The mother of the complainant tried to intervene, but she was pushed down to the ground. The Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:44:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined unknown persons tried to lock the complainant and his wife in the bathroom, but that was an unsuccessful attempt. The wife of the complainant in the meantime, closed the door from inside and came out in the corridor of the bedroom facing the main road and started shouting about the loot and asked the people to inform the police. Both the unknown persons left the house. At that time, people standing near the shop on the road followed both the persons. Thereafter, Sureshbhai and Mukeshbhai Patel, who were running there STD PCO shop on the ground floor had come to the house of the complainant and took complainant and his wife to Safi Hospital.
5. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval stated that it was an attack on the practicing advocates. The attempt was of committing robbery. Had both the advocates not succumb to the demands of the unknown persons, they would have probably have lost their life.
5.1 Learned APP Mr. Raval submitted that the rigorous imprisonment for the robbery extends to ten years and the provision is also for fine. The criminal intimidation to the advocate would be considered grave and for that the punishment is for two years or with fine or with both under Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:44:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined Section 506(2) of IPC. Mr. Raval stated that the punishment should be proportionate to the injury sustained and the gravity of the matter. Learned APP stated that the incident had occurred with an advocate and if appropriate punishment is not granted, then no advocates would be safe from such miscreant persons, who would enter their house with the criminal intent.
6. The prayer has been made under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. by filing an appeal enhancing the sentence. Section 377 of CrPC is for the enhancement of the sentence, which permits the accused to plead for his acquittal or reduction of the sentence. Sub- section (3) of Section 377 reads as under:-
"(3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the Court of Session or, as the case may be, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the case of Soman vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 382 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:44:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648 and has made observations in Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 as under :-
"10. Currently, India does not have structured sentencing guidelines that have been issued either by the legislature or the judiciary. However, the Courts have framed certain guidelines in the matter of imposition of sentence. A Judge has wide discretion in awarding the sentence within the statutory limits. Since in many offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences the minimum punishment is prescribed, each Judge exercises his discretion accordingly. There cannot, therefore, be any uniformity. However, this Court has repeatedly held that the Courts will have to take into account certain principles while exercising their discretion in sentencing, such as proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation. In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of an offence depends, apart from other things, also upon its harmfulness.
11. This Court in the case of Soman Vs. State of Kerala [(2013) 11 SCC 382] observed thus :
"27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different rationales - most prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence.
27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint 27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:44:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined seriousness or gravity of the offence. 27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it.
27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer but the distributor and the retail vendor would know its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even though any harm to the consumer might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if the consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor."
12. The same is the verdict of this Court in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 2 SCC 648] wherein it is observed thus:
"84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:44:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined
13. From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the principle governing the imposition of punishment will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the sentence should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is committed. The gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the crime and all other attending circumstances have to be borne in mind while imposing the sentence. The Court cannot afford to be casual while imposing the sentence, inasmuch as both the crime and the criminal are equally important in the sentencing process. The Courts must see that the public does not lose confidence in the judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences will do more harm to the justice system and may lead to a state where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and resorts to private vengeance.
14. In the matter at hand, it is proved that the victim has sustained a grievous injury on a vital portion of the body, i.e. the head, which was fractured. The doctor has opined that the injury was life threatening. Hence, in our considered opinion, the High Court was too lenient in imposing the sentence of six days only which was the period already undergone by the accused in confinement."
8. The attempt of robbery at the house of the Advocate should be considered as very serious. The attempt has been made by entering the house and looting the advocates with their gold ornaments and cash. In the process, they have also sustained injuries. The advocate of the accused was heard on Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:44:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined the sentence and even the Public Prosecutor had argued on the sentence before the Trial Court, and when it was inquired during the hearing of the sentence, it was found that the accused was in jail for about four years and three months.
9. The learned Judge had also considered the relevant judgments, which were placed for consideration and had sentenced the accused for four years and four months rigorous imprisonment under Section 392 of IPC with fine, as referred hereinabove and for section 506(2) IPC, seven days rigorous imprisonment.
10. In Bed Raj v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1955 (2) SCR 583, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded that the question of sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere to the detriment of the accused person except for very strong reasons, which must be disclosed on the face of judgment. It was further held that in a matter of enhancement, there should not be interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment. Here in this case, the accused No.1 has already suffered imprisonment of four years, four months and five days. Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:44:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined
11. The jail remarks, shows that the accused had already undergone four years, four months and five days imprisonment, this Court does not find any special reason to enhance the sentence.
12. In the result, the present appeal stands rejected. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj/13 Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:44:00 IST 2025