Gujarat High Court
Ankurbhai Manibhai Patel vs Amitbhai Kantibhai Patel on 14 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ENHANCEMENT) NO. 1028 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
ANKURBHAI MANIBHAI PATEL
Versus
AMITBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 14/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant-original complainant under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the respondents nos.1 to 4 (i.e. original accused nos.2, 4, 5 and 6, respectively) vide judgment and order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Himmatnagar, in Sessions Case No.42 of 2018. Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined
2. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the present respondents nos.1 to 4 (i.e. original accused nos.2, 4, 5 and 6) for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs.5,000=00 each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for ninety days.
3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as under :
(i) That prior to 24.07.2016 (i.e. the date of the alleged incident), there was a dispute between the accused persons and the complainant side with regard to the electricity connection for the well in the agricultural land, which was alleged to have been obtained by the deceased Manibhai Nathabhai Patel (i.e. the father of the present appellant-
complainant) forging the signatures of his brother Kantibhai Patel (i.e. the father of the present respondent- accused no.2).
Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined
(ii) For the said incident, the respondent-accused no.2 herein had filed a complaint against the deceased Manibhai Nathabhai Patel and the respondents-accused persons were compelling the deceased to transfer back the electricity connection of the well as well as the land to them. It is alleged that they were pressurizing and harassing the deceased regarding the same, and once they had also tried to make the deceased consume Celphos tablet, which is generally used to protect food-grains from insects and pests, however, at that time the deceased somehow got saved. Therefore, a complaint in this regard was lodged by Shirishbhai (i.e. the younger son of the deceased and brother of the complainant).
(iii) It is further alleged that harboring resentment over filing of the complaint by the deceased against them, the accused persons started harassing the deceased and compelling him to withdraw the complaint and to transfer back the electricity connection as well as the land to them. Therefore, out of the pressure exerted and intimidation Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined given by them, the deceased had committed suicide by hanging himself with a Neem tree in his own agricultural field in between 24.07.2016 evening and 25.07.2016 morning.
(iv) Therefore, a complaint was lodged on 26.07.2016 by the appellant-complainant vide I-CR No.90 of 2016 with the Himmatnagar Rural Police Station, against the respondents nos.1 to 4 (i.e. original accused nos.2, 4, 5 and 6) for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) That pursuant to the complaint, the investigation was carried out, and during the investigation, the necessary panchnamas were drawn and the statements of the witnesses conversant with the incident were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the present respondents nos.1 to 4 (i.e. original accused nos.2, 4, 5 and 6) for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined framed the Charge vide Exh.53 against the present respondents-accused, whereupon the respondents-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To bring home the charge against the respondents- accused, the prosecution has examined, in all, 16 witnesses and adduced 30 documentary evidence in support of the case, which are as follow:
WITNESSES NO. NAME EXHIBIT
1. Dr.Rita Shivanandan Sinha, Medical Officer 60
2. Prithvisinh Kalusinh Parmar, Panch Witness 65
3. Jayantibhai Venabhai Patel, Panch Witness 66
4. Popatbhai Dahyabhai Prajapati, Panch Witness 72
5. Pareshbhai Chandrakantbhai Suthar, Panch Witness 76 6. Jitendrabhai Manilal Patel, Witness 78 7. Rajnibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Witness 81 8. Vasantkumar Narayanbhai Patel, Witness 82 9. Ankurbhai Manibhai Patel, Complainant 84 10. Shirishbhai Manibhai Patel, Witness 93 11. Parulben Shirishbhai Patel, Witness 95 12. Dineshbhai Lalabhai Patel, Witness 97 13. Tarakbhai Yogeshkumar Shah, Witness 98 14. Ishwarbhai Shamalbhai Parmar, P.S.O. 106 Himmatnagar Rural Police Station, who registered the complaint Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined
15. Chandrakantbhai Mathurbhai Rathod, Head 109 Constable, Himmatnagar Rural Police Station
16. Komalben Khetsinh Rathod, P.S.I. and Investigating 112 Officer DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SR. DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT EXHIBIT NO.1 Postmortem report of the deceased 61
2 Forwarding letter to get certificate of cause of death 62 after conducting postmortem 3 Police report about the deceased 63 4 Inquest Panchnama of the deceased 64 5 Signature slips of the Panchas 67 6 Panchnama of the place of occurrence 70 7 Signature slip of the Panchas 73 8 Signature slip of the Panchas 74 9 Panchnama of the muddamal articles being suicide 75 note/chit, mobile phone and rope recovered on the day of the incident 10 Recovery panchnama of the diary and the cheque of 77 the Hansalpur Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Hansalpur in respect of the natural handwriting of the deceased 11 Accidental Death declaration 85 12 Complaint 86 13 Letter addressed to the Chief Signature Specialist 99 Handwriting and Photography Bureau for inspecting of seized documents by the Superintendent of Police, Himmatnagar.
14 Letter addressed to the Chief Signature Specialist 100 Handwriting and Photography Bureau for inspecting of seized documents by the Police Sub-Inspector, Himmatnagar Rural Police Station.15 Muddamal Despatch Note with check-list 101 Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined 16 Intimation letter to the Superintendent of Police, 102 Himmatnagar by DFS Gandhinagar 17 Authority Letter 103 18 Forwarding Letter of DFS Gandhinagar 104 19 Report of DFS, Document Division, Gandhinagar 105 20 Suchi Patra (Accidental Death) 107 21 Station Diary (Accidental Death) 108 22 Suchi Patra (Complaint) 110 23 Station Diary (Complaint) 111 24 Muddamal Despatch Note 113 25 Letter addressed to the Police Sub-Inspector, 117 Himmatnagar Rural Police Station by DFS Gandhinagar for collecting the report and muddamal from DFS Gandhinagar 26 Acknowledgment for receipt of muddamal by FSL 118 Ahmedabad 27 Acknowledgment for receipt of muddamal by FSL 119 Ahmedabad 28 Letter addressed to the Civil Hospital, Himmatnagar 120 to conduct postmortem of the dead body of the deceased 29 Forwarding Letter of FSL Ahmedabad and report 121 30 Forwarding Letter of FSL Ahmedabad and report 123
5. The learned Special Judge, thereafter, recorded the further statement of the respondents nos.1 to 4 (i.e. original accused nos.2, 4, 5 and 6) under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made against them in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and the accused denied the charges levelled against them by pleading innocence and Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined stated that they have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The accused had not led any evidence in their defense. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict and sentence the accused for the offence as aforementioned.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court, the appellant-original complainant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the accused mainly on the grounds that the sentence awarded by the trial court is inadequate and disproportionate to the offence committed by the accused and the trial court has committed an error in taking a lenient view while imposing a lesser sentence.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-
COMPLAINANT.
7. Learned advocate Mr.Rathin Raval appearing for the appellant - original complainant has submitted that the trial court has, without assigning any adequate and special reasons, awarded inadequate sentence. The law in this regard is well- settled that while awarding the punishment, the court should take into consideration the nature of the offence, the Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined circumstances under which it was committed and the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. Mr.Raval has submitted that the measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. In the facts of the present case, the accused have been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, for which, the punishment can be imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. However, the trial court, after considering the evidence on record as well as the fact that the accused nos.2 and 4 are young men shouldering responsibility to look after their families and they have no criminal antecedent and also the fact that the respondents- accused nos.5 and 6 being women of advanced age and widow, imposed a lesser sentence (i.e. rigorous imprisonment of three years) for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In the facts of the present case, despite there being overwhelming evidence against the accused, the trial court has awarded lesser sentence which, ultimately, will result into travesty of justice and spread a wrong message to the society. The trial court ought to have taken a deterrent view Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined while imposing the sentence in such a serious offence. Learned advocate Mr.Raval has lastly submitted that taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances as well as the seriousness and gravamen of the offence committed by the accused, the appeal is required to be admitted and allowed, thereby the sentence awarded by the trial court may be enhanced to the maximum punishment for the offences with which the accused have been charged.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE :
8. Learned APP Ms.Asmita Patel appearing for the respondent-State, while opposing the present appeal, has made two-fold submissions, viz. (i) as per Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the present appeal is not maintainable; and (ii) while awarding lesser sentence, the trial court has assigned adequate and sufficient reasons, therefore, it cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. She has, therefore, submitted that the order of sentence passed by the trial court does not warrant interference by this Court. Learned APP Ms.Patel has further submitted that the trial court, after Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined appreciating the entire evidence on record; both, ocular as well as documentary, has rightly convicted the present respondents nos.1 to 4 (i.e. original accused nos.2, 4, 5 and 6). It is submitted that while awarding lesser sentence (i.e. rigorous imprisonment for three years) upon the respondents-convicts for the offence under punishable Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the trial court, at pages 120-121 of the judgment, has assigned assigned the reasons. In support of her arguments, learned APP Ms.Patel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Parvinder Kansal vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4044, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under :
"9. Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with 'Appeals' and Section 372 makes it clear that no appeal to lie unless otherwise provided by the Code or any other law for the time being in force. It is not in dispute that in the instant case appellant has preferred appeal only under Section 372, Cr.PC. The proviso is inserted to Section 372, Cr.PC by Act 5 of 2009. Section 372 and the proviso which is subsequently inserted read as under:
"372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force:
Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court."
A reading of the proviso makes it clear that so far as victim's right of appeal is concerned, same is restricted to three eventualities, namely, acquittal of the accused; conviction of the accused for lesser offence; or for imposing inadequate compensation. While the victim is given opportunity to prefer appeal in the event of imposing inadequate compensation, but at the same time there is no provision for appeal by the victim for questioning the order of sentence as inadequate, whereas Section 377, Cr.PC gives the power to the State Government to prefer appeal for enhancement of sentence. While it is open for the State Government to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence under Section 377, Cr.PC but similarly no appeal can be maintained by victim under Section 372, Cr.PC on the ground of inadequate sentence. It is fairly well settled that the remedy of appeal is creature of the Statute. Unless same is provided either under Code of Criminal Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined Procedure or by any other law for the time being in force no appeal, seeking enhancement of sentence at the instance of the victim, is maintainable. Further we are of the view that the High Court while referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 599 has rightly relied on the same and dismissed the appeal, as not maintainable."
9. Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, learned APP Ms.Patel has, therefore, submitted that the present appeal filed by the appellant-complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
10. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, prima facie it appears that the trial court has convicted the present respondents-accused for the alleged offence and imposed a short term of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs.5,000=00 each. It prima facie appears that the appellant-original complainant has filed the Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined present appeal for enhancement of the sentence on a very limited ground. It is an admitted fact that after the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the appellant- original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
11. Considering the provision of Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the right of the victim is restricted to three eventualities, namely, (i) acquittal of the accused, (ii) conviction of the accused for lesser offence, or (iii) for imposing inadequate compensation. While the victim is given opportunity to prefer appeal in the event of imposing inadequate compensation, but at the same time there is no provision for appeal by the victim for questioning the order of sentence as inadequate, whereas Section 418 of the BNSS gives the power to the State Government to prefer appeal for enhancement of sentence. While it is open for the State Government to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence under Section 418 of the BNSS, however, at the same time, no appeal can be maintained by the victim under Section 413 of the BNSS on the ground of inadequate sentence. Thus, it is fairly well-settled that the Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined remedy of appeal is creature of the Statute. Unless the same is provided either under the BNSS or by any other law for the time being in force, no appeal, seeking enhancement of sentence at the instance of the victim, is maintainable. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence preferred by the appellant-original complainant is not maintainable. Even otherwise, perusing the order of sentence passed by the trial court, it does not appear to be perverse or illegal since while passing the order of sentence, the trial court has assigned adequate and sufficient reasons for exercising its discretion.
12. This Court deems it fit to refer to the principles, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bed Raj vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1955 SC 778, governing exercise of powers by the High Court while enhancing the sentence imposed by the trial court, which reads thus :
"A question of a 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 an accused person Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined except for very strong reasons which must be disclosed on the face of the judgment; see for example the observations in
-'Dalip Singh v/s. State of Punjab', and 'Nar Sigh v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh'.
In a matter of enhancement there should not be interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment. Interference is only called for when it is manifestly inadequate. In our opinion, these principles have not been observed. It is impossible to hold in the circumstances described that the Sessions Judge did not impose a substantial sentence, and no adequate reason has been assigned by the learned High Court Judges for considering the sentence manifestly inadequate....."
13. Admittedly, it appears from the bare perusal of the judgment of the trial court that the trial court, after taking into consideration the age of the respondents-accused, more particularly, the fact that the respondents nos.2 & 4 are young and shouldering the responsibility to look after their families and the respondents nos.5 & 6 being women of advanced age and widow, imposed a lesser sentence (i.e. rigorous imprisonment for three years) for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court, in its judgment at pages 120-121, has assigned the reasons for awarding lesser Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined punishment.
14. The punishment for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 306 reads thus :
"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
15. On the overall appreciation and reanalysis of the entire evidence, prima facie, it appears that the trial court, after taking into consideration the nature of the offence as well as the circumstances and the manner in which it has occurred and also considering the fact that the respondents-accused nos.2 & 4 are young and shoulder the responsibility to look after their families and they have no criminal antecedent so also the fact that the respondents-accused nos.5 & 6 being women of advanced age and widow, has imposed a lesser sentence (i.e. rigorous imprisonment for three years) along with a fine of Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined Rs.5000=00 each, which cannot be said to be perverse or illegal since the trial court has exercised its discretion to impose the minimum sentence. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial court, since, while exercising the judicial discretion, the trial court has recorded sufficient and adequate reasons. This Court is satisfied with the reasoning assigned by the trial court on the aspect of sentence and, therefore, no interference is required to be made with the discretion exercised by the trial court. It is settled position of law that the question of sentence is a matter of discretion, and if sufficient reasons are recorded by the trial court, then the High Court should not interfere with the decision of the trial court on the issue of sentence.
16. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as well as considering the principles as laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bed Raj (supra) and Parvinder Kansal (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court while imposing the lesser sentence do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined just and proper, and in recording the same, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the trial court. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference with the order of sentence passed by the trial court.
17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of sentence passed by the trial court, therefore, no interference is warranted. The appeal, therefore, fails on both the counts (i.e. on the grounds of maintainability and propriety) and the same is hereby dismissed. Records and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J.) /MOINUDDIN Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:58:52 IST 2025