SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009(4) Crimes 561 (Guj.)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
C.K. Buch and D.N. Patel, JJ.
Sharfuddin Kamaruddin
and Ors. –Appellants
versus
State of Gujarat –Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 930 of 1999
Decided on 3-12-2008

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Ms. Rekha H. Kapadia, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. D.S. Pandit, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 75 r/w Section 298 CrPC—Appellants were convicted under Section 394/34, 342/34, 376(2)/34 IPC and under Section 25 Arms Act—Accused were awarded sentence of imprisonment for life in view of their conviction in another case under Section 394/34 IPC—Appeal confined to quantum of sentence—No certified copy of judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded in other case was placed before trial Court—In absence of any such judgment no reliance could be placed upon previous conviction of appellant—There was breach of Section 298 CrPC—Sentence reduced to imprisonment for 10 years for offence under Section 394/34 and 376 (2)/34 IPC and to run concurrently.

       Held: In view of the aforesaid provision of Code of Criminal Procedure, there is a set and prescribed method of proving fact of previous conviction. If at all, the prosecution is relying upon it for getting awarded enhanced punishment, as required under Section 75 of Indian Penal Code. Looking to the evidence on record and looking to the documents presented by the prosecution before the trial Court, no certified copy of judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded by Sessions Court, in Special Case No.11 of 1999 was laid before the trial Court. Thus, in absence of any such judgment no reliance can be placed upon the previous conviction of the appellant, much less upon judgment and order of conviction in Special Case No.11 of 1999. We are not deciding whether a separate charge ought to be framed under Section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or not? Likewise we are also not deciding an impact of, not asking a question to the accused while recording his further statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, there is clear breach of Section 298 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 about his previous conviction. The previous conviction in Special Case No.11 of 1999 by the Sessions Court cannot be relied upon for awarding enhanced sentence under Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code. We leave the question open for the decisions in the future cases, whether a separate charge is necessary for awarding enhanced punishment under Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code or whether a question should be asked to an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, about his previous conviction.

       Undisputedly, in the present case, neither copy or any extract of the proceedings that were pending before Special Judge, Kheda at Nadiad were there on record before the learned Trial Judge. So, according to us, the accused otherwise, could not have been imposed life imprisonment invoking the provisions of Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code.

       For the reasons aforesaid, we are inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned Advocate Ms. Kapadia and reduce the quantum of punishment imposed by the Trial Court to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Both the accused, are now ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no need to alter the quantum of punishment imposed by the trial Court qua other two offences, that is, offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1a) of the Arms Act. Obviously, both the sentences would run concurrently and therefore, it is hereby ordered. (Paras 11 to 13)

JUDGMENT

C.K. Buch and D.N. Patel, JJ.—This appeal is under Section 374 read with Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by original Accused Nos. 1 and 2 of Sessions Case No. 114 of 1998 tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad. The appellants have challenged legality and order of conviction and sentence dated 6th August, 1999 hereby both the accused have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) read with Section 34, Section 342 read with Section 34, Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1 a) of the Arms Act. Both the accused have been ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each qua for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been imposed life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 25(1a) of the Arms Act, in default, punishment is simple imprisonment for one month, except for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in default punishment for the said offence is simple imprisonment for two months.

2. Initially, learned Advocate Ms. Shilpa Shah was appointed to represent the case of Appellant No.1 and Ms. Rekha Kapadia for Appellant No.2. But because of personal inconvenience on the part of Ms. Shilpa Shah, Registry has appointed Ms. Rekha Kapadia to represent case of Appellant No.1 on the strength of the order passed by this Court on 28.11.2008. We have heard learned Advocate Ms. Kapadia for both the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Pandit for the respondent State.

3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is reflected in charge-sheet Exhibit 4. It is alleged that both the appellants (hereinafter referred as accused), with a common intention entered the field of the complainant located in the sim of village Bakrol, Ta: Dascroi on 27/28.09.1994 at about 2.00 a.m. and their intention was to commit loot (robbery). Both the accused then reached near bore well of the field where the complainant and the prosecution witnesses were sleeping. All of them were threatened on the gunpoint of country made pistol, their hands and legs were tied and the, ornaments- golden as well as silver were looted by both the accused. They also snatched a wrist watch worth Rs. 100/- and cash of Rs. 360/- and Rs. 3000/- from two different prosecution witnesses. While committing the offences of robbery, the complainant as well as witnesses were forced to go inside the small room erected adjacent to bore well and they were confined inside. It is alleged that after committing robbery and bolting witnesses in the room the accused forcibly took away minor daughter of the complainant behind one small room erected adjacent to bore well and both the accused committed rape on her one after another. According to prosecution, the accused firstly had entered the field of prosecution witness Mahobbatsinh Mohanbhai at about 11.00 p.m. some time prior to midnight on 27.09.1994 and locked the witness. This witness and his wife were threated by showing a country made pistol and dharia which the accused were holding and their legs and hands were also tied by the accused. At that time, the accused had fired the country made pistol, as a result of which, the sari put on by the wife of witness Mahobbatsinh sustained damages. It is alleged that thereafter at about 1.00 a.m., immediately after mid night, the accused entered the field of P.W. Mohanbhai Somabhai and under threats, his both hands were tied by the accused and he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top