Gujarat High Court
Jiva Ranmal Keshwala vs State Of Gujarat on 22 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/39/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 39 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
JIVA RANMAL KESHWALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR EE SAIYED(725) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SIKANDER SAIYED(3458) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ROHANKUMAR RAVAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HEMANT RAVAL for the complainant
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment and order of
conviction dated 31.12.2012 passed by the learned District
and Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Sessions Case no.18 of
2011. The learned Judge sentenced the appellant under
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for two
years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- with the
default stipulation of three months simple imprisonment.
For the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC,
sentence of three years simple imprisonment and fine of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/39/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
Rs.1,500/- and in default of payment of fine, three months
imprisonment is imposed.
2. Today, the complainant - Bhikhubhai Nathabhai Keshwala
has filed an affidavit for permission to compound the
offences through learned advocate Mr. Hemant Raval who
proposes to file Vakalatnama. Let his Vakalatnama be
accepted. Advocate Mr. Raval has submitted that the
relation between the injured and the appellant is of uncle
and nephew. The appellant at that time was 22 years old.
This Court had verified from the complainant and he states
that the issue was very minor. However, he sustained the
injury of fracture and now for better development and
future of the appellant, he has proposed to settle the
matter and thus, has filed the affidavit.
3. The conviction is under Sections 324 and 325 IPC. The
facts as could be noted is that on 25.2.2011 at about
10.45, at the outskirts of Ranavav Palasar, there was field
of complainant with the lattice at the fence for ingress and
egress on the road. The motorcycle of the complainant was
parked on the road. The accused had asked the
complainant not to keep the motorcycle on the road and in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/39/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
aggression by abusing the complainant, gave a blow on the
head with the stick formed of Gundi plant. The
complainant states that to resist the aggression, the
complainant raised his hand and the stick caused fracture
on the left hand and injury on the left side of the head.
4. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.) considers Section 325 as compoundable with the
permission of the Court and the person who is hurt can
compound the offence. Since the complainant urged the
Court to compound the offence and as Section 325
becomes compoundable, with the permission of the Court,
considering the relation and the nature of quarrel, which
arose for the minor issue, permission to compound Section
325 is granted.
5. Learned APP Mr. Rohankumar Raval has submitted that
over and above the fracture on the hand, there is 2 CLWs
on the vital region and because of that, the complainant as
an injured had to take stitches. Learned APP stated that
Section 324 IPC is not compoundable.
6. Countering the arguments, Mr. Sikandar Saiyed, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/39/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
advocate for the appellant has submitted that earlier prior
to 2009 to the amendment in Section 320 Cr.P.C., Section
324 was compoundable by the person to whom the hurt
was caused. Advocate Mr. Saiyed has submitted that the
learned Judge was required to consider the description of
the weapon, which was used, which is a stick from Gundi
plant.
6.1. Advocate Mr. Saiyed has relied upon the decision in the
case of Sathiyamoorthy v. State, passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no.1169 of 2014 as well
as the decision in the case of Khursheed & Ors. v. State of
U.P. passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal no.1302 of 2007 to buttress his submission for
compounding the offence.
7. The circumference of stick is five inch and the length is
three ft. and seven inch. The observation which has been
made to the injury that it can be sustained by hard and
blunt substance. Section 324 refers to the injury by an
instrument, which could be used for shooting, stabbing or
cutting or any instrument, which can be used for an
offence as a weapon likely to cause death. Here the injury
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/39/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
sustained has not been described as one which could
cause death and the description of the article five which is
the stick is identified for the injury. The certificate at
Exh.24 with the deposition of the Doctor shows that the
injury could be by hard and blunt substance. The
certificate also states that the head injury was simple and
the grievous hurt is about the fracture of the hand.
Considering the description of instrument which has been
observed and identified, shall not be described as shooting,
stabbing or cutting weapon and the injury sustained on
the head being simple, there would not be any intention of
the accused to cause any grievous injury on the head for
any danger of causing death.
8. This Court does not find any reason to upheld the
conviction under Section 324 since the injury on the head
was simple in nature which was not likely to cause any
death and hence, the conviction under Section 324 is set
aside and equally the conviction under Section 325 is also
set aside as being compounded.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/39/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and
order of the Trial Court convicting the accused is quashed
and set aside. R & P to be sent back to the concerned
Court.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
