Gujarat High Court
Gangdasbhai Ramjibhai Sindhav vs State Of Gujarat on 3 August, 2021
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
R/CR.A/922/2021 IA ORDER DATED: 03/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION
(FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO. 1 of 2021
In
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 922 of 2021
==========================================================
GANGDASBHAI RAMJIBHAI SINDHAV,
LALJIBHAI RAMJIBHAI SINDHAV,
RAMJIBHAI KESHAVBHAI SINDHAV,
RONAKBHAI RAMJIBHAI SINDHAV,
SANJAYBHAI GANGDASBHAI SINDHAV,
NITESH @ HITESH GANGDASBHAI SINDHAV,
RIKSHITBHAI LALJIBHAI SINDHAV
and
JANAKBHAI MULABHAI SINDHAV
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR M B PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the APPLICANTS
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the OPPONENT - STATE
MR CHIRAG H PAREKH, ADVOCATE for the COMPLAINANT
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
Date : 03/08/2021
IA ORDER
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence pending
appeal. There are eight applicants, who all were accused.
2. The applicants are convicted by the Sessions Judge,
Amreli vide judgment dated 14.06.2021 in Sessions Case
No.35 of 2016. The conviction is principally under Sections 395
R/CR.A/922/2021 IA ORDER DATED: 03/08/2021
and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Different Sentences are
awarded for different sections, however, the maximum
sentence awarded is rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
Fine is also imposed and in default thereof, simple
imprisonment is imposed.
3. The appeal is admitted by this Court.
4. Rule was issued earlier.
5. Heard learned advocate for the appellants / applicants,
learned advocate for the complainant and learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
6. It is indicated that the applicants at present are in jail and
are serving the sentence.
7. It is noted that, while recording this order, the orders
passed by this Court qua other accused / convicts in this
appeal / Sessions case as well as in Criminal Appeal No.897 of
2021 (Sessions Case No.34 of 2016) are also kept in view.
8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record, this
Court finds as under :
8.1 The root cause of the cross cases is essentially a social
dispute arising from love marriage of daughter of one family
(the accused in this case).
8.2 This Court has considered the narration of the complaint
R/CR.A/922/2021 IA ORDER DATED: 03/08/2021
from both sides, which has led to these convictions.
8.3 So far the complaints for the offence punishable under
Sections 394 / 395 of the IPC are concerned, prima facie, this
Court finds that, the conviction to that extent is unsustainable
and therefore, that part should go. The sentence of seven
years therefore would not be sustainable. Excluding that, the
sentence is for six months.
8.4 Even if the case of the complainants from both the sides
are accepted on its face value, as noted above, it is a case of
social dispute arising from love marriage of a daughter of one
family and the dispute ought to have been resolved socially.
8.5.1 Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the applicants
(from the daughter's side) states that, since this was the social
matrimonial dispute, now the wisdom has prevailed and the
daughter's side is ready to settle the issue in the way, which
does not percolate further in the married life of their daughter.
8.5.2 Mr. Parekh, learned advocate for the contesting
parties has also agreed with this and has submitted that, he
does not have any objection if the sentence is suspended.
8.5.3 Mr. Soni, learned APP has stated that, as the State,
he would not be in a position to give any concession so far the
conviction recorded by the Sessions Court is concerned. At the
same time he states that, since the genesis of the dispute was
a social dispute and when both the contesting parties are
before the Court, let appropriate order be passed.
R/CR.A/922/2021 IA ORDER DATED: 03/08/2021
8.6 Considering the totality, this Court finds that ends of
justice would meet, if the of sentence is suspended during
pendency of the appeal.
9. In view of above, the following order is passed.
9.1 This application is allowed.
9.2 It is ordered that the sentence imposed on the applicants
by the Sessions Judge, Amreli vide judgment dated 14.06.2021
in Sessions Case No.35 of 2016, shall remain suspended during
pendency of the appeal.
9.3 The applicants are ordered to be released on bail on
furnishing personal bond of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred
Only) each.
9.4 Rule is made absolute in above terms.
10. Registry shall communicate this order to the concerned
Authority / Court.
Direct service is permitted.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J)
M.H. DAVE/38
