Gujarat High Court

The State Of Gujarat vs Ramesh Ramchandra Patil on 24 July, 2025

Author: Gita Gopi

Bench: Gita Gopi

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/456/2006                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                              R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 456 of 2006


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                       Yes           No
                                                                                               √
                      ==========================================================
                                                  THE STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                          Versus
                                              RAMESH RAMCHANDRA PATIL & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR ROHAN RAVAL APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                      RULE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                      UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
                      UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                                            Date : 24/07/2025

                                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed by the State under Section 377

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'Cr.P.C.')

making a prayer for enhancing the sentence of accused No.1,

who was convicted under Section 392 of IPC and ordered to be

sentenced for four years and four months rigorous imprisonment

and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine further

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025

undefined

three months simple imprisonment. The accused No.1 was also

ordered to undergo seven days rigorous imprisonment for the

offence punishable under Section 506(2) of IPC and fine of

Rs.500/- with the default stipulation of further seven days

simple imprisonment.

2. During the course of trial accused No.2 died and the trial

stood abated qua him. The trial was conducted under Section

397, 120B and 506(2) of IPC. The accused No.1 was acquitted for

the offence under Section 120B of IPC.

3. The judgment records that the accused No.1 had already

undergone four years and three months imprisonment. The jail

remarks was called for. Today, learned APP has produced on

record the jail remarks of Deputy Superintendent, Vadodara

Central Jail in connection to accused No.1 - Ramesh

Ramchandra Patil. The same is ordered to be taken on record.

The jail remarks shows that accused No.1 - Ramesh

Ramchandra Patil had already undergone sentence of four years

four months and five days of imprisonment.

4. The facts of the case, as noticed can be succinctly laid

down hereunder:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025

undefined

4.1 The complainant - Balwantray Krushnalal Shukla,

residing at Flat Nos.17 and 18, Ramkrupa Apartment,

Abrama, Dharampur, Valsad, is a practicing advocate at

Labour Court, Valsad. On 20.04.2001 at about 11:00 p.m., the

complainant and his wife were getting ready to go to the

Labour Court, at that time, mother of the complainant,

Kamlaben, domestic servant Savitaben and another servant

Jashuben were present there.

4.2 It was stated that the car of the complainant met with an

accident ten days prior and therefore, complainant and his

wife were to proceed to Court hiring a rickshaw, at that time,

rickshaw driver had come and was standing on the door.

Thereupon, two unknown persons aged about 20 to 25 years,

one with red shirt and another with white shirt had come

there. The person wearing the red shirt told the complainant

that they came there to meet him, as they were terminated

from the Glass Factory, and they wanted to take the advice

from the complainant. Therefore, the complainant, as was

ready to go to the Court and found them as unknown persons,

denied for any conversation. However, they told the

complainant that they had come from far away place. In turn,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025

undefined

complainant gave his card and informed them that his

telephone number is in the visiting card and they could give a

ring to him. The complainant thereafter, with his wife had

gone to the Labour Court by rickshaw and returned back

home at 2:00 p.m.

4.3 It is stated that about 5:30 p.m., one of the unknown

person phoned the complainant and requested to meet the

complainant personally. The complainant thereafter, gave

them an appointment, and at about 7.15 p.m., both the

unknown persons came to the house and as the door of the

house was closed from inside, they ranged the door-bell. The

wife of the complainant opened the door and since she had

seen both the unknown persons, who had come in the

morning, she went to the kitchen to call the complainant. It

was stated that during this period, both the unknown persons

entered the house and closed the door from inside and when

complainant and his wife came to drawing room, both

unknown persons unexpectedly attacked them. One of them

wearing red shirt took out a knife from his pocket and put at

the neck of the complainant and another person removed the

knife and put it at the neck of wife of the complainant. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025

undefined

complainant caught hold the hand of that person and

thereafter, scuffle ensued and as a result complainant

sustained injuries on his right cheek, one finger of the left

hand and on the left palm.

4.4 It is stated that another person forcibly pinned down the

wife of the complainant on the ground. One of them forced the

complainant to sit on the Sofaset under the fear by placing the

knife on the neck of the complainant. The complainant offered

them to take whatever they want. The complainant offered

them to take the gold locket, which was owned by him worth

Rs.5,000/- and also a 'Rudraksha Mala'. In spite of that, the

unknown persons asked the complainant for other jewellery

and money and took the complainant and his wife to the

bedroom, opened the store-well lying in the bedroom, the wife

of the complainant gave away 'Mangalsutra' worth

Rs.13,000/- and other ornaments to those persons.

4.5 It is also stated that they forcibly took away cash of

Rs.13,000/-. Thereafter, unknown persons took the

complainant and his wife near bathroom and disconnected the

telephone line. The mother of the complainant tried to

intervene, but she was pushed down to the ground. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025

undefined

unknown persons tried to lock the complainant and his wife in

the bathroom, but that was an unsuccessful attempt. The wife

of the complainant in the meantime, closed the door from

inside and came out in the corridor of the bedroom facing the

main road and started shouting about the loot and asked the

people to inform the police. Both the unknown persons left the

house. At that time, people standing near the shop on the road

followed both the persons. Thereafter, Sureshbhai and

Mukeshbhai Patel, who were running there STD PCO shop on

the ground floor had come to the house of the complainant

and took complainant and his wife to Safi Hospital.

5. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval stated that it was an

attack on the practicing advocates. The attempt was of

committing robbery. Had both the advocates not succumb to

the demands of the unknown persons, they would have

probably have lost their life.

5.1 Learned APP Mr. Raval submitted that the rigorous

imprisonment for the robbery extends to ten years and the

provision is also for fine. The criminal intimidation to the

advocate would be considered grave and for that the

punishment is for two years or with fine or with both under

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025

undefined

Section 506(2) of IPC. Mr. Raval stated that the punishment

should be proportionate to the injury sustained and the

gravity of the matter. Learned APP stated that the incident

had occurred with an advocate and if appropriate punishment

is not granted, then no advocates would be safe from such

miscreant persons, who would enter their house with the

criminal intent.

6. The prayer has been made under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. by

filing an appeal enhancing the sentence. Section 377 of CrPC is

for the enhancement of the sentence, which permits the accused

to plead for his acquittal or reduction of the sentence. Sub-

section (3) of Section 377 reads as under:-

"(3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the Court of Session or, as the case may be, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence."

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the case of

Soman vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 382

and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025

undefined

reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648 and has made observations in

Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 as under :-

"10. Currently, India does not have structured sentencing guidelines that have been issued either by the legislature or the judiciary. However, the Courts have framed certain guidelines in the matter of imposition of sentence. A Judge has wide discretion in awarding the sentence within the statutory limits. Since in many offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences the minimum punishment is prescribed, each Judge exercises his discretion accordingly. There cannot, therefore, be any uniformity. However, this Court has repeatedly held that the Courts will have to take into account certain principles while exercising their discretion in sentencing, such as proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation. In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of an offence depends, apart from other things, also upon its harmfulness.

11. This Court in the case of Soman Vs. State of Kerala [(2013) 11 SCC 382] observed thus :

"27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different rationales - most prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence.

27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint 27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025

undefined

seriousness or gravity of the offence. 27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it.

27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer but the distributor and the retail vendor would know its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even though any harm to the consumer might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if the consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor."

12. The same is the verdict of this Court in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 2 SCC 648] wherein it is observed thus:

"84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025

undefined

13. From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the principle governing the imposition of punishment will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the sentence should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is committed. The gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the crime and all other attending circumstances have to be borne in mind while imposing the sentence. The Court cannot afford to be casual while imposing the sentence, inasmuch as both the crime and the criminal are equally important in the sentencing process. The Courts must see that the public does not lose confidence in the judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences will do more harm to the justice system and may lead to a state where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and resorts to private vengeance.

14. In the matter at hand, it is proved that the victim has sustained a grievous injury on a vital portion of the body, i.e. the head, which was fractured. The doctor has opined that the injury was life threatening. Hence, in our considered opinion, the High Court was too lenient in imposing the sentence of six days only which was the period already undergone by the accused in confinement."

8. The attempt of robbery at the house of the Advocate

should be considered as very serious. The attempt has been

made by entering the house and looting the advocates with

their gold ornaments and cash. In the process, they have also

sustained injuries. The advocate of the accused was heard on

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/456/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025

undefined

the sentence and even the Public Prosecutor had argued on

the sentence before the Trial Court, and when it was inquired

during the hearing of the sentence, it was found that the

accused was in jail for about four years and three months.