Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chandrikaben W/O Dipak Gangaram ... on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/17/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17 of 2013
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHANDRIKABEN W/O DIPAK GANGARAM RAMAVAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RUTVIJ S OZA(5594) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NON BAILABLE WARRANT NOT RECEIVED BACK for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 30/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. The appeal preferred by the State against the judgment
of acquittal was allowed and respondent nos.1 and 2 were
found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302
and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and they are convicted for
the said two offences as per the judgment dated 24.7.2025. As
they did not appear before the Court on that day, non-bailable
warrants were issued against them to secure their presence for
the purpose of questioning them on the quantum of sentence
to be imposed on them. The said non-bailable warrants are
executed and both accused no.1 and accused no.2 are brought
under arrest and they are produced before the Court today by
the police.
2. We have questioned them separately on the quantum of
sentence to be imposed on them, after explaining them that
they were found guilty for the offences under Sections 452 and
302 of IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/17/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
3. Accused no.1 has stated that she is aged about 38 years
at present and that her husband has deserted her and that she
got two sons, who are aged about 16 years and 14 years
respectively, and she is doing agriculture labour work and
earning Rs.250/- to Rs.300/- per day and, at present, she is the
sole bread-winner of the family and her two minor children are
dependents on her. Therefore, she has tendered apology and
requested the Court to take lenient view in imposing sentence
against her taking into consideration her family condition and
the afore-mentioned circumstances stated by her.
4. Accused no.2, when questioned, stated that she is now
aged about 40 years and she also got two sons aged about 17
years and 8 years respectively, and her husband is doing
labour work and earning Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day and she
is doing work of preparing brass articles at home and earning
Rs.100/- per day and that her husband has recently met with a
road accident and he is bed-ridden for the last four months and
they are poor people and that their minor children are
dependents on them and she also, while tendering apology,
requested the Court to take a lenient view in imposing
sentence against her.
5. We have also heard Mr.Rutvij Oza, learned advocate for
the accused nos.1 and 2. He also submits that the offence
relates to the year 2010 and both accused no.1 and accused
no.2 were initially acquitted in the trial Court in the year 2012
and now the present appeal was allowed in the year 2025 and
they were found guilty after 13 years and he submits that as
both accused no.1 and accused no.2 are women and as they
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/17/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
are poor people and as both of them got minor sons and as
they have to take care of their sons, he would pray the Court
to take lenient view in imposing sentence against them. He
would also request to grant time to surrender to enable them
to make preparation for preferring an appeal to the Supreme
Court as they are poor people.
6. We have also heard Ms.Krina Calla, learned APP for the
State and she submits that the Court may impose appropriate
sentence as per the gravity of the offence and taking into
consideration the submissions made by accused no.1, accused
no.2 and their counsel.
7. We have taken into consideration the above submissions
made by both accused no.1 and accused no.2 and also the
learned counsel for accused no.1 and accused no.2. The
punishment prescribed for offence punishable under Section
452 of IPC is imprisonment for either description for a term,
which may extend to seven years and also shall be liable to
fine. The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section
302 of IPC is imprisonment for life or death, and they shall also
be liable to fine. So, the minimum sentence prescribed for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC is imprisonment for life and
the maximum punishment prescribed is death. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered
view that this is not a rarest of rare case, where capital
punishment of death is to be imposed, which is the maximum
punishment prescribed under Section 302 of IPC against both
accused no.1 and accused no.2. As imprisonment for life is the
minimum sentence that is prescribed for the offence under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/17/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
Section 302 of IPC, considering the fact that both the accused
are female and taking into consideration their family
conditions, as stated by them above, we are of the considered
view that imposing sentence of imprisonment for life against
them would meet the ends of justice in the given facts and
circumstances of the case. Therefore, accused no.1 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/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused no.2
is also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
8. Further, for the offence punishable under Section 452 of
IPC is concerned, accused no.1 is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused no.2
is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year for the offence punishable under Section
452 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of one month. Both the sentences imposed against accused
no.1 and accused no.2 shall run concurrently.
9. In case the Government in exercise of its powers
conferred on it under Section 432 of Criminal Procedure Code
decides to commute the sentence of imprisonment for life
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/17/2013 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
imposed against both accused no.1 and accused no.2, after
undergoing imprisonment for a period of 14 years, as required
under Section 433-A, the period of imprisonment undergone by
accused no.1 and accused no.2 at the pre-trial stage and
during trial stage shall be given set off under the proviso to
Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code, while calculating said
requisite period of 14 years period of imprisonment.
10. The request of the learned counsel for accused no.1 and
accused no.2 to grant time for the accused to surrender cannot
be acceded to, as both accused nos.1 and 2 were found guilty
for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and the said request is
hereby rejected. Both accused no.1 and accused no.2 shall be
taken into custody, as they have to serve the sentence
imposed against them.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
R.S. MALEK
