Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Manojbhai Madhubhai Surti on 21 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1095/2013 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1095 of 2013
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANOJBHAI MADHUBHAI SURTI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NON BAILABLE WARRANT NOT RECEIVED BACK for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 21/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. As per the judgment dated 24.6.2025 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.1095 of 2013, the appeal is allowed and the
respondent is found guilty for the offence of murder under
Section 302 of IPC. As the respondent was absent on that day,
non-bailable warrant was issued against him to secure his
presence and to question him on the quantum of sentence to
be imposed on him for the aforesaid offence.
2. Pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued against the
respondent to secure his presence to question him on
sentence and to impose appropriate sentence against him,
police have executed the warrant and arrested him and
produced him before the Court today. We have explained to
him that he was found guilty for the offence of murder
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1095/2013 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
killing his wife and questioned him regarding quantum of
sentence to be imposed against him.
3. He has submitted that he is now aged about 45 years and
that he has been suffering from ailment of paralysis and that
he has also undergone operation to his brain and that he is
physically very weak at present. He further submits that he
has five vighas of land and he has given said land to a third
party for cultivation and he is living now with the agricultural
produce that he got towards his share in the land. Therefore,
he has requested to take a lenient view and impose a lesser
sentence on him, taking into consideration his health condition.
He also physically looks very weak and feeble.
4. The sentence prescribed for the offence of murder under
Section 302 of IPC is death or imprisonment for life and he
shall also be liable for fine. So the maximum punishment
prescribed for offence under Section 302 of IPC is death
sentence and the minimum sentence to be imposed is
imprisonment for life. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, this is not a rarest of rare case to impose
maximum sentence of death. Therefore, we deem it
appropriate to impose the minimum sentence for life against
the accused.
5. Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section
302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In case, he commits
default in payment of fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1095/2013 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
6. The period of imprisonment, if any, undergone by him at
the pre-trial stage and during trial stage shall be given set off
under the proviso to Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code,
in case the State considers his case for commutation of his
imprisonment under Section 433-A of Criminal Procedure Code,
while calculating 14 years of period referred to in Section 433-
A of Criminal Procedure Code.
7. In case the convict requires any medical treatment for
the ailment, which he is suffering, the concerned jail
authorities shall provide adequate medical treatment to him.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
R.S. MALEK
