Gujarat High Court
Gigabhai Fulabhai Kathechiya T-Koli vs The State Of Gujarat on 15 September, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/437/2007 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 437 of 2007
==========================================================
GIGABHAI FULABHAI KATHECHIYA T-KOLI & ORS.
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Appellant(s) No. 1,3
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Appellant(s) No. 2
NON BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Appellant(s) No. 2
MR ROHANKUMAR RAVAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 15/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. On service of non-bailable warrant to the accused-Bijalbhai Talsingbhai Kathechiya T-Koli has been brought before this Court at 11:00 a.m. by the Police Japta from Surendranagar Sub-Jail. The accused-Bijalbhai Talsingbhai Kathechiya T- Koli informed that he is represented by learned advocate Mr. Munjal V. Acharya who stated that he has instructions to appear for the accused. Let his Vakalatnama be accepted on record.
2. The accused - Bijalbhai Talsingbhai Kathechiya T-Koli is accompanied with the representatives of the Village as well as widow of the Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:55:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/437/2007 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined complainant-Manaben Butabhai Kankariya and nephew-Mavjibhai Polabhai Kankariya. Both of them have stated that other co-accused have died and the role of the present appellant - accused is very nominal and with the intervention of the villagers and the representatives of the community, they have decided to settle the dispute to maintain peace and law and order in the Village.
3. Manaben Butabhai Kankariya and Mavjibhai Polabhai Kankariya both have filed their notarized Settlement Deeds, which are signed by the witnesses and Rupabhai Kathechiya has submitted that the Village people have decided to compensate the family with money and since the complainant has died, the amount would go to the widow.
4. Manaben has also produced a copy of the death certificate of the complainant-Kankariya Butabhai Varshingbhai who died on 27.12.2024. Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:55:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/437/2007 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined
5. The conviction is under Section 324 IPC against all three accused. Accused nos.1 and 3 since deceased, the appeal qua them was abated by an order dated 26.2.2024. The sentence of imprisonment under Section 324 read with Section 114 IPC was ordered of two years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of imprisonment under Section 504 read with Section 114 IPC was ordered of two years rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act"), the sentence awarded was five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of fine, six months further imprisonment was ordered by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Surendranagar on 21.2.2007 in Special Case no.73 of 2006. Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:55:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/437/2007 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined
6. Mr. Rohankumar Raval, learned APP has submitted that though the offence is compoundable, but the appellant is also convicted under the Atrocities Act and states that keeping in view the object of the Atrocities Act, Mr. Raval, learned APP has submitted that conviction is required to be upheld.
7. The incident is dated 18.4.2005. The role which has been attributed to the present appellant- accused - Bijalbhai Talsingbhai Kathechiya T- Koli is of beating the complainant with the stick on the leg. The issue was regarding the land, which was belonging to the Village trust, which was between two communities and it was alleged that keeping the grudge, present incident has taken place.
8. Section 324 IPC, as it stood prior to 31.12.2009, was compoundable with permission of the Court and the person who is hurt may compound the offence. Here the victim Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:55:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/437/2007 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined complainant - Kankariya Butabhai Varshingbhai has died and the heirs have filed the affidavits stating that it was a dispute between two communities of the Village and they have resolved the dispute. Considering the notarized agreements of settlement filed by Manaben and Mavjibhai and since Section 324 becomes compoundable as per the table in sub-section (2) of Section 320 with the permission of Court and when Section 504 IPC is also compoundable as per the table below sub-section (1) of Section 320 without permission of the Court. Hence, in view of the provision, both the sections are ordered to be compounded.
9. In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Per: Hon'ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt) referred to the judgment rendered in the case of Raghunathrao Ganpatrao vs. Union of India, reported in 1993 (1) SCR Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:55:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/437/2007 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined 480, wherein it has been held as under:-
"In our considered opinion this argument is misconceived and has no relevance to the facts of the present case. One of the objectives of the Preamble of our Constitution is 'fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.' It will be relevant to cite the explanation given by Dr. Ambedkar for the word 'fraternity' explaining that 'fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians.' In a country like ours with so many disruptive forces of regionalism, communalism and linguism, it is necessary to emphasis and re-
emphasis that the unity and integrity of India can be preserved only by a spirit of brotherhood. India has one common citizenship and every citizen should feel that he is Indian first irrespective of other basis. In this view, any measure at bringing about equality should be welcome."
10. In a similar way, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandini Sundar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 457, held that:-
"The Constitution itself, in no uncertain terms, demands that the Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:55:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/437/2007 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined State shall strive, incessantly and consistently, to promote fraternity amongst all citizens such that dignity of every citizen is protected, nourished and promoted."
11. In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) while dealing with the constitutional validity of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it was held as under:-
"12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameter, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear and no argument to the contrary has been raised."
12. In view of the fact that the compoundable Sections 324 and 504 IPC has been compounded and taking into consideration the referred judgments under the Atrocities Act and with a view to maintain peace and serenity in the Village, the Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:55:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/437/2007 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.2.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court no.2, Surendranagar in Special Case no.73 of 2006 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
(GITA GOPI,J) Maulik Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:55:38 IST 2025