Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chetankumar Kantilal Mevada on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/493/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 493 of 2014
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHETANKUMAR KANTILAL MEVADA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NON BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 06/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH
ROY)
1. Pursuant to direction given by this Court on
08.09.2025, the accused was brought under arrest
today on execution of non-bailable warrant issued
against him, to question him on the quantum of
sentence to be imposed on him for the offences
punishable under Section 304(Part II) of IPC, for which
he was found guilty in this appeal.
2. We have heard the accused in person regarding the
quantum of sentence to be imposed on him. After
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/493/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
informing him that he was found guilty for the offences
punishable under section 304(Part II) of IPC, he has
submitted that he is now aged about 38 years and that
he is now married and he got a wife and 3 year old son
and that his old parents are also depending upon him.
He further stated that he is now working as an
employee in a furniture shop and earning Rs.22,000/-
per month and he is the sole breadwinner of his family
and taking into consideration the said economic
condition of him and the fact that his Wife, minor son
and parents are depending on him, he has requested
to take a lenient view and to impose a lesser
punishment on him.
3. We have also heard Mr Jigar Gadhvi, learned counsel
for the accused. He would submit that the accused has
already undergone imprisonment for a period of 18
months for the offences punishable under section 323,
and 337 of IPC as he was convicted for the offence
punishable under section 323 of IPC and was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/493/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
year and was convicted for the offence punishable
under section 337 of IPC and was sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months and he
was let off as set off was given to him under section for
428 of criminal procedure Code for the period of
imprisonment undergone by him during pre-trial
stage.
4. He would further submit that taking into consideration
the poor economic condition of the accused and his
family conditions, he submits that a lenient view may
be taken in his favour and to impose a lesser
punishment on him, and if possible to confine his
punishment to the said period of 18 months already
undergone by him.
5. We have taken into consideration the aforesaid
submissions made by both the accused and his
counsel. The request of the counsel for the accused to
confine the punishment to the period of 18 months of
imprisonment, which he has already undergone, is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/493/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
devoid of merit and cannot be considered. The accused
has undergone the said imprisonment for the offences
punishable under Section 323 and 337 of the IPC for
which he was found guilty and convicted, against
which, no appeal was preferred by him and hence, the
said conviction became final.
6. Now, in addition to the said two offences, he was found
guilty for the offences punishable under section
304(Part II) of IPC. The punishment prescribed for the
offence punishable under Section 304(Part II) of IPC is
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both.
Taking into consideration the fact that the accused
committed the said act, which resulted into the death
of a 65-year-old woman, in a fit of anger and in a
sudden quarrel without any intention to commit
murder of her and considering the situation and the
context in which the said offence took place and also
considering the fact that the accused is the sole
breadwinner of his family and as his wife, minor son
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/493/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
and his old parents are dependents on him, we are of
the considered view that imposing a sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years would
meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances
of the case. As the accused is responsible for the death
of a 65 year old woman on account of the act
committed by him in a fit of anger and in the sudden
quarrel, we are constrained to impose the said
sentence on him.
7. Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The
period of imprisonment imposed against him shall run
concurrently.
8. Before parting with the matter, we would like to
seriously express our opinion deprecating the conduct
of the concerned police officer of Vadgam Police Station
in not being present before the Court when the matter
is posted today for hearing on the quantum of sentence
upon producing the accused before the Court on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/493/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
execution of the NBW issued against him. In fact, the
Court needs certain explanation and information as to
whether any set off was given to the accused earlier
while imposing the sentence against him for the
offences punishable under section 323 and 337 of the
IPC for a total period of 18 months. There is no
sufficient material before the learned APP to explain
the same. She has to explain the same on instructions
received from the concern police officer of the Vadgam
Police Station. As the said officer is not present before
the court today and is absent, she could not furnish
the information immediately. This has caused lot of
inconvenience to the Court. Therefore, we are
constrained to pass over the matter for 2 hours to
secure the said information. The APP, after seeking
instructions over phone and after getting some written
instructions through Whatsapp, she could furnish the
information to the Court. In fact, this inconvenience is
caused only due to the absence of the SHO of Vadgam
Police Station.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/493/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
9. Undoubtedly, there is a negligence on his part and it
amounts to gross dereliction of his duty in attending
the Court on the date of which the matter is posted for
hearing on the quantum of sentence. This practice of
the Police Officer deliberately remaining absent before
the Court on the date of hearing on a quantum of
sentence is to be curbed. Therefore, the
Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha district is
directed to take appropriate action against the
concerned SHO of the Vadgam Police Station in not
attending the Court today and in committing
dereliction of his duty. The higher authorities of Police
Department shall give necessary instructions to all the
concerned Police Stations that on the date on which,
the matters are posted for pronouncing the judgments
and on the date on which the matters are posted for
hearing on the quantum of sentence, they shall
invariably attend the concerned Courts and be present
before the Court to assist the Court and the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/493/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
APP in furnishing the necessary information.
10. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this
order to the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha
District for compliance with the above direction.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
Anuj
