Gujarat High Court

Ankurbhai Manibhai Patel vs Amitbhai Kantibhai Patel on 14 July, 2025

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.A/1028/2025                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ENHANCEMENT) NO. 1028 of 2025


                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS         Sd/-
                        ================================================================

                                      Approved for Reporting                  Yes              No
                                                                              ✔
                        ================================================================
                                                    ANKURBHAI MANIBHAI PATEL
                                                              Versus
                                                  AMITBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL & ORS.
                        ================================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                        MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
                        ================================================================

                             CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS

                                                          Date : 14/07/2025

                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the

appellant-original complainant under Section 413 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for enhancement of

the sentence imposed upon the respondents nos.1 to 4 (i.e.

original accused nos.2, 4, 5 and 6, respectively) vide judgment

and order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Himmatnagar, in Sessions Case No.42 of 2018.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

2. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and

sentence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the

present respondents nos.1 to 4 (i.e. original accused nos.2, 4, 5

and 6) for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with

Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently,

sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three

years along with fine of Rs.5,000=00 each, and in default of

payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for

ninety days.

3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as under :

(i) That prior to 24.07.2016 (i.e. the date of the alleged

incident), there was a dispute between the accused persons

and the complainant side with regard to the electricity

connection for the well in the agricultural land, which was

alleged to have been obtained by the deceased Manibhai

Nathabhai Patel (i.e. the father of the present appellant-

complainant) forging the signatures of his brother

Kantibhai Patel (i.e. the father of the present respondent-

accused no.2).

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

(ii) For the said incident, the respondent-accused no.2

herein had filed a complaint against the deceased

Manibhai Nathabhai Patel and the respondents-accused

persons were compelling the deceased to transfer back the

electricity connection of the well as well as the land to

them. It is alleged that they were pressurizing and

harassing the deceased regarding the same, and once they

had also tried to make the deceased consume Celphos

tablet, which is generally used to protect food-grains from

insects and pests, however, at that time the deceased

somehow got saved. Therefore, a complaint in this regard

was lodged by Shirishbhai (i.e. the younger son of the

deceased and brother of the complainant).

(iii) It is further alleged that harboring resentment over

filing of the complaint by the deceased against them, the

accused persons started harassing the deceased and

compelling him to withdraw the complaint and to transfer

back the electricity connection as well as the land to them.

Therefore, out of the pressure exerted and intimidation

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

given by them, the deceased had committed suicide by

hanging himself with a Neem tree in his own agricultural

field in between 24.07.2016 evening and 25.07.2016

morning.

(iv) Therefore, a complaint was lodged on 26.07.2016 by

the appellant-complainant vide I-CR No.90 of 2016 with

the Himmatnagar Rural Police Station, against the

respondents nos.1 to 4 (i.e. original accused nos.2, 4, 5

and 6) for the offences punishable under Section 306 read

with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(v) That pursuant to the complaint, the investigation was

carried out, and during the investigation, the necessary

panchnamas were drawn and the statements of the

witnesses conversant with the incident were recorded. After

completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to

be filed against the present respondents nos.1 to 4 (i.e.

original accused nos.2, 4, 5 and 6) for the offences

punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the

Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

framed the Charge vide Exh.53 against the present

respondents-accused, whereupon the respondents-accused

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To bring home the charge against the respondents-

accused, the prosecution has examined, in all, 16 witnesses and

adduced 30 documentary evidence in support of the case, which

are as follow:

WITNESSES

NO. NAME EXHIBIT

1. Dr.Rita Shivanandan Sinha, Medical Officer 60

2. Prithvisinh Kalusinh Parmar, Panch Witness 65

3. Jayantibhai Venabhai Patel, Panch Witness 66

4. Popatbhai Dahyabhai Prajapati, Panch Witness 72

5. Pareshbhai Chandrakantbhai Suthar, Panch Witness 76

Himmatnagar Rural Police Station, who registered the complaint

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

15. Chandrakantbhai Mathurbhai Rathod, Head 109 Constable, Himmatnagar Rural Police Station

16. Komalben Khetsinh Rathod, P.S.I. and Investigating 112 Officer

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

SR. DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT EXHIBIT NO.

2 Forwarding letter to get certificate of cause of death 62 after conducting postmortem

9 Panchnama of the muddamal articles being suicide 75 note/chit, mobile phone and rope recovered on the day of the incident 10 Recovery panchnama of the diary and the cheque of 77 the Hansalpur Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Hansalpur in respect of the natural handwriting of the deceased

13 Letter addressed to the Chief Signature Specialist 99 Handwriting and Photography Bureau for inspecting of seized documents by the Superintendent of Police, Himmatnagar.

14 Letter addressed to the Chief Signature Specialist 100 Handwriting and Photography Bureau for inspecting of seized documents by the Police Sub-Inspector, Himmatnagar Rural Police Station.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

16 Intimation letter to the Superintendent of Police, 102 Himmatnagar by DFS Gandhinagar

19 Report of DFS, Document Division, Gandhinagar 105

25 Letter addressed to the Police Sub-Inspector, 117 Himmatnagar Rural Police Station by DFS Gandhinagar for collecting the report and muddamal from DFS Gandhinagar 26 Acknowledgment for receipt of muddamal by FSL 118 Ahmedabad 27 Acknowledgment for receipt of muddamal by FSL 119 Ahmedabad 28 Letter addressed to the Civil Hospital, Himmatnagar 120 to conduct postmortem of the dead body of the deceased 29 Forwarding Letter of FSL Ahmedabad and report 121 30 Forwarding Letter of FSL Ahmedabad and report 123

5. The learned Special Judge, thereafter, recorded the further

statement of the respondents nos.1 to 4 (i.e. original accused

nos.2, 4, 5 and 6) under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. with regard

to the incriminating circumstances made against them in the

evidence rendered by the prosecution and the accused denied

the charges levelled against them by pleading innocence and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

stated that they have been falsely implicated in the alleged

offence. The accused had not led any evidence in their defense.

Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict and

sentence the accused for the offence as aforementioned.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of

sentence awarded by the trial court, the appellant-original

complainant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement

of the sentence imposed upon the accused mainly on the

grounds that the sentence awarded by the trial court is

inadequate and disproportionate to the offence committed by the

accused and the trial court has committed an error in taking a

lenient view while imposing a lesser sentence.
                        SUBMISSION   ON                BEHALF              OF   THE          APPELLANT-
                        COMPLAINANT.
7. Learned advocate Mr.Rathin Raval appearing for the

appellant - original complainant has submitted that the trial

court has, without assigning any adequate and special reasons,

awarded inadequate sentence. The law in this regard is well-

settled that while awarding the punishment, the court should

take into consideration the nature of the offence, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

circumstances under which it was committed and the degree of

deliberation shown by the offender. Mr.Raval has submitted that

the measure of punishment should be proportionate to the

gravity of the offence. In the facts of the present case, the

accused have been held guilty for the commission of offence

punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the

Indian Penal Code, for which, the punishment can be

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend

to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. However, the trial

court, after considering the evidence on record as well as the fact

that the accused nos.2 and 4 are young men shouldering

responsibility to look after their families and they have no

criminal antecedent and also the fact that the respondents-

accused nos.5 and 6 being women of advanced age and widow,

imposed a lesser sentence (i.e. rigorous imprisonment of three

years) for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 114 of

the Indian Penal Code. In the facts of the present case, despite

there being overwhelming evidence against the accused, the trial

court has awarded lesser sentence which, ultimately, will result

into travesty of justice and spread a wrong message to the

society. The trial court ought to have taken a deterrent view

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

while imposing the sentence in such a serious offence. Learned

advocate Mr.Raval has lastly submitted that taking into

consideration the aforesaid circumstances as well as the

seriousness and gravamen of the offence committed by the

accused, the appeal is required to be admitted and allowed,

thereby the sentence awarded by the trial court may be

enhanced to the maximum punishment for the offences with

which the accused have been charged.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE :

8. Learned APP Ms.Asmita Patel appearing for the

respondent-State, while opposing the present appeal, has made

two-fold submissions, viz. (i) as per Section 413 of the Bharatiya

Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 372 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the present appeal is not

maintainable; and (ii) while awarding lesser sentence, the trial

court has assigned adequate and sufficient reasons, therefore, it

cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. She has, therefore,

submitted that the order of sentence passed by the trial court

does not warrant interference by this Court. Learned APP

Ms.Patel has further submitted that the trial court, after

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

appreciating the entire evidence on record; both, ocular as well

as documentary, has rightly convicted the present respondents

nos.1 to 4 (i.e. original accused nos.2, 4, 5 and 6). It is

submitted that while awarding lesser sentence (i.e. rigorous

imprisonment for three years) upon the respondents-convicts for

the offence under punishable Section 306 read with Section 114

of the Indian Penal Code, the trial court, at pages 120-121 of the

judgment, has assigned assigned the reasons. In support of her

arguments, learned APP Ms.Patel has relied upon the judgment

of the Supreme Court in the case of Parvinder Kansal vs. State

of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4044, wherein the

Supreme Court has held as under :

"9. Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with 'Appeals' and Section 372 makes it clear that no appeal to lie unless otherwise provided by the Code or any other law for the time being in force. It is not in dispute that in the instant case appellant has preferred appeal only under Section 372, Cr.PC. The proviso is inserted to Section 372, Cr.PC by Act 5 of 2009. Section 372 and the proviso which is subsequently inserted read as under:

"372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force:

Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court."

A reading of the proviso makes it clear that so far as victim's right of appeal is concerned, same is restricted to three eventualities, namely, acquittal of the accused; conviction of the accused for lesser offence; or for imposing inadequate compensation. While the victim is given opportunity to prefer appeal in the event of imposing inadequate compensation, but at the same time there is no provision for appeal by the victim for questioning the order of sentence as inadequate, whereas Section 377, Cr.PC gives the power to the State Government to prefer appeal for enhancement of sentence. While it is open for the State Government to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence under Section 377, Cr.PC but similarly no appeal can be maintained by victim under Section 372, Cr.PC on the ground of inadequate sentence. It is fairly well settled that the remedy of appeal is creature of the Statute. Unless same is provided either under Code of Criminal

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

Procedure or by any other law for the time being in force no appeal, seeking enhancement of sentence at the instance of the victim, is maintainable. Further we are of the view that the High Court while referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 599 has rightly relied on the same and dismissed the appeal, as not maintainable."

9. Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court,

learned APP Ms.Patel has, therefore, submitted that the present

appeal filed by the appellant-complainant seeking enhancement

of the sentence is not maintainable and the same may be

dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :

10. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties

and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present

case, prima facie it appears that the trial court has convicted the

present respondents-accused for the alleged offence and imposed

a short term of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three

years along with a fine of Rs.5,000=00 each. It prima facie

appears that the appellant-original complainant has filed the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

present appeal for enhancement of the sentence on a very limited

ground. It is an admitted fact that after the judgment of

conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the appellant-

original complainant has preferred the present appeal.

11. Considering the provision of Section 413 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 372 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the right of the victim is

restricted to three eventualities, namely, (i) acquittal of the

accused, (ii) conviction of the accused for lesser offence, or (iii)

for imposing inadequate compensation. While the victim is given

opportunity to prefer appeal in the event of imposing inadequate

compensation, but at the same time there is no provision for

appeal by the victim for questioning the order of sentence as

inadequate, whereas Section 418 of the BNSS gives the power to

the State Government to prefer appeal for enhancement of

sentence. While it is open for the State Government to prefer

appeal for inadequate sentence under Section 418 of the BNSS,

however, at the same time, no appeal can be maintained by the

victim under Section 413 of the BNSS on the ground of

inadequate sentence. Thus, it is fairly well-settled that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

remedy of appeal is creature of the Statute. Unless the same is

provided either under the BNSS or by any other law for the time

being in force, no appeal, seeking enhancement of sentence at

the instance of the victim, is maintainable. In that view of the

matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present

appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence preferred by the

appellant-original complainant is not maintainable. Even

otherwise, perusing the order of sentence passed by the trial

court, it does not appear to be perverse or illegal since while

passing the order of sentence, the trial court has assigned

adequate and sufficient reasons for exercising its discretion.

12. This Court deems it fit to refer to the principles, as laid

down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bed Raj vs. State of

U.P., reported in AIR 1955 SC 778, governing exercise of

powers by the High Court while enhancing the sentence imposed

by the trial court, which reads thus :

"A question of a sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused person

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

except for very strong reasons which must be disclosed on the face of the judgment; see for example the observations in

-'Dalip Singh v/s. State of Punjab', and 'Nar Sigh v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh'.

In a matter of enhancement there should not be interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment. Interference is only called for when it is manifestly inadequate. In our opinion, these principles have not been observed. It is impossible to hold in the circumstances described that the Sessions Judge did not impose a substantial sentence, and no adequate reason has been assigned by the learned High Court Judges for considering the sentence manifestly inadequate....."

13. Admittedly, it appears from the bare perusal of the

judgment of the trial court that the trial court, after taking into

consideration the age of the respondents-accused, more

particularly, the fact that the respondents nos.2 & 4 are young

and shouldering the responsibility to look after their families and

the respondents nos.5 & 6 being women of advanced age and

widow, imposed a lesser sentence (i.e. rigorous imprisonment for

three years) for the offence under Section 306 read with Section

114 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court, in its judgment at

pages 120-121, has assigned the reasons for awarding lesser

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

punishment.

14. The punishment for the offence under Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code is imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to

fine. Section 306 reads thus :

"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

15. On the overall appreciation and reanalysis of the entire

evidence, prima facie, it appears that the trial court, after taking

into consideration the nature of the offence as well as the

circumstances and the manner in which it has occurred and

also considering the fact that the respondents-accused nos.2 & 4

are young and shoulder the responsibility to look after their

families and they have no criminal antecedent so also the fact

that the respondents-accused nos.5 & 6 being women of

advanced age and widow, has imposed a lesser sentence (i.e.

rigorous imprisonment for three years) along with a fine of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

Rs.5000=00 each, which cannot be said to be perverse or illegal

since the trial court has exercised its discretion to impose the

minimum sentence. Therefore, this Court does not find any

infirmity in the order passed by the trial court, since, while

exercising the judicial discretion, the trial court has recorded

sufficient and adequate reasons. This Court is satisfied with the

reasoning assigned by the trial court on the aspect of sentence

and, therefore, no interference is required to be made with the

discretion exercised by the trial court. It is settled position of law

that the question of sentence is a matter of discretion, and if

sufficient reasons are recorded by the trial court, then the High

Court should not interfere with the decision of the trial court on

the issue of sentence.

16. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

present case as well as considering the principles as laid down

by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bed Raj (supra) and

Parvinder Kansal (supra), this Court is of the considered

opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court while

imposing the lesser sentence do not suffer from any perversity or

illegality. The findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1028/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

just and proper, and in recording the same, no illegality or

infirmity has been committed by the trial court. Therefore, this

Court does not find any ground warranting interference with the

order of sentence passed by the trial court.

17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this

Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate

conclusion and the resultant order of sentence passed by the

trial court, therefore, no interference is warranted. The appeal,

therefore, fails on both the counts (i.e. on the grounds of

maintainability and propriety) and the same is hereby dismissed.

Records and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court.

(VIMAL K. VYAS, J.) /MOINUDDIN