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

2009 Supreme(Guj) 476

Before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Vora and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. B. Antani
BHARATSINH KHEMABHAI MASANI
verses
STATE OF GUJARAT

Advocates Appeared:
Kunal B. Shah with B. A. Surti, for the Appellant.
Ms. Chetnaben M. Shah, A.P.P., for the Respondent.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 323, 504 and 506(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374 - Bombay Police Act - Section 135 - Offence of murder - Instant appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, in Sessions Case - Present appellant being accused of the said Sessions Case, came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and to pay fine in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of 7 days - Held, The judgment and order of the trial Court convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him for the imprisonment of life and to pay fine in default to undergo imprisonment of 7 days, is set aside and instead we found the accused-appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and we convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and we sentenced the accused-appellant for the rigorous imprisonment of 8 years and to pay fine in default to undergo imprisonment of 7 days for the said offence - The conviction and sentences awarded by the trial Court to the accused for the offence punishable under Secs. 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed and not interfered with - It is directed that all the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the appellant-accused shall run concurrently and that the accused-appellant is entitled to the benefit of set-off as has been awarded by the trial Court for the period which he has already undergone during trial - Appeal of the appellant therefore is partly allowed to the above extent and it is directed that the accused-appellant be set at liberty when sentences, as abovesaid, is served upon him, if he is not required to be detained in jail, for any other purpose - Muddamal be disposed of in terms of the directions of the trial Court - Appeal partly allowed.

J. R. VORA, J. Instant appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), on 4-2-2003, in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2002. Present appellant being accused of the said Sessions Case, came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of 7 days. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 1 month as well as appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 1 month. Appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 3 months as well as he was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act, but he was not separately sentenced for this conviction. Learned trial Judge directed that all the sentences to run concurrently and accused-appellant was given benefit of set off for the period which he had undergone during trial.

2. As per the brief prosecution of the case, on 18th of September, 2001, after 2-30 p.m. incident occurred and complaint was given by Laxmanbhai Bhikabhai, resident of village Badarkha, Taluka - Dholka, District, Ahmedabad. In this incident, two persons died - i. e. Rajendrasinh, brother of the complainant Laxmansinh Bhikabhai as well as Sajjanben, mother of the complainant. It is the prosecution case that complainant Laxmansinh had illicit relations with the wife of the accused and the accused-appellant was having that suspicion, and therefore, though they belonged to one family, they were not in speaking terms amongst them. On the day of the incident, at about 2-30 p.m. complainant, out of their house in faliya, along with Udesinh and Mahendrasinh was playing carom, at that time, accused came from the side of the bus stand and came near the complainant where he was playing carom and gave one blow of fist from the back of the complainant and stated that complainant was keeping illicit relation with his wife. Complainant stood up and ran from that place to his house because the accused had a knife with him and he tried to extract knife. The complainant came to his house and conveyed to Rajendrasinh - deceased, his brother that fist blow was given by the accused to him. In the meantime, the accused came near the house of the complainant speaking abuses. Rajendrasinh came out of house in faliya and tried to persuade the accused, but accused stated that Laxmansinh had illicit relations with his wife and he was to be done to death. Rajendrasinh attempted to prevent the accused. At that time; accused jumped and inflicted a blow of knife on the right side of the chest of Rajendrasinh and one blow was given on the side of the body. While Rajendrasinh had fallen on the ground and one knife blow was given by the accused on the wrist of Rajendrasinh. Mother Sajjanben, the second deceased in the incident, tried to intervene and the accused inflicted a knife blow in her abdomen. Thereafter, accused was caught hold of by complainant and he started shouting. Therefore, neighbours came down to the scene of offence and accused ran away with the knife. Both the deceased were taken to Sushrusha Hospital at Ahmedabad, but during treatment, Rajendrasinh died on the same day at 19-00 hours while mother Sajjanben died on 20-9-2001 at about midnight. According to prosecution case, on 18-9-2001, from Sushrusha Hospital, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, a vardhi which is placed at Exh. 18, was sent to the Police Station and one Constable Mangalsinh Vaghabhai went to Sushrusha Hospital and recorded statement of Bhavubhai Prabhats























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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