Back
2015 Supreme(Guj) 737
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.M. Thaker, J.
Jotibhai Kalubhai Parmar – Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 2012
Decided On : 27.10.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :M.A. Kharadi, Advocate
For the Respondents: L.B. Dabhi, APP
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the intention and knowledge to cause harm, coupled with the resulting injuries, are sufficient to establish the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
JUDGMENT - Section 307 - Indian Penal Code, Section 504 - Indian Penal Code, Section 25 - Arms Act
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the accused fired a gunshot at the complainant and other individuals, resulting in injuries. The accused was charged with offences under Sections 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of the charged offences based on the evidence presented, including the testimony of the injured persons and the medical evidence. The court concluded that the accused had the intention and knowledge to cause harm, and the injuries sustained were grievous and sufficient to cause death.
Issues: The issues revolved around the identification of the accused, the number of pellets fired, and the distance from which the shot was fired. The court also considered the motive behind the attack and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the charged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the identification of the accused by the injured persons, coupled with medical evidence and corroborating physical evidence, established the guilt of the accused. The court also emphasized that the intention and knowledge to cause harm were sufficient to attract Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of the trial court.
K.M. Thaker, J.
1. This Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.4.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dahod, in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2012.
2. The said sessions case was registered against two accused persons. The accused No. 2 was charged with offence punishable under Sections 307 and 114 of Indian Penal Code whereas the accused No. 1 was charged with offence punishable under Sections 307 and504 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1)(a)(b) of the Arms Act.
3. By the judgment and order, which is challenged in present criminal appeal, the accused No. 2 is acquitted from the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 114 of Indian Penal Code whereas the accused No. 1 is held guilty, and he is convicted, for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for offence punishable under Section 307 and is also ordered to pay fine in sum of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and for offence punishable under Section 504, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 100 and in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500 and in default rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Learned trial Court has directed that all sentences shall run concurrently.
4. According to the FIR, which was registered on 26.3.2010 and according to the case of prosecution, one Mr. K.C. Baria had dashed his motorcycle with one Mr. R.K. Hathila, father of the complainant, and on account of the said injury which complainant's father sustained, he succumbed to the injury and died, for which an FIR was lodged. The complainant, in his complaint filed on 26.3.2010, alleged that his family tried for amicable settlement with said Mr. Baria and had also requested sarpanch of village Simalia to intervene and act as a mediator, but any reply or response was not received from said Mr. Baria. According to the case of prosecution, on 26.3.2010 when the complainant alongwith his cousin Mr. V.D. Hathila and his brother Mr. Rajendra and one Mr. Ajitkumar was standing near house of his uncle, Mr. Jyotibhai K. Parmar (i.e. appellant) of village Bhiloi came on his motorcycle at about 8:00 p.m. and asked the complainant as to why he was deputing persons asking for money for settling the matter of the accident suffered by his father. According to the complainant, said Mr. Jyotibhai Parmar i.e. the appellant - accused started abusing the complainant and took out a fire arm (pistol) and fired gunshot. On account of the gunshot, the complainant was hit on the left side of his chest, left hand and left thigh. The pellets also hit Mr. Ajitkumar (who was standing with the complainant) on his hip and right hand and his cousin Mr. V.D. Hathila was also hit by the pellets. According to the prosecution's case, brother of the complainant i.e. Mr. Rajendra who was also with them tried to catch the accused/appellant, but he fled on his motorcycle towards Garbada cross road. The prosecution's further case is that ambulance was called and three injured persons were removed to hospital where they were treated. The said FIR was registered as I Cr. No. 44 of 2010 at Garbada police station.
5. During investigation, the I.O. gathered sufficient material (including injury certificate, statement of witnesses, panchnama of recovery of fire arm, panchnama of the place of incident and empty box of pellets as well as motorcycle) which was sufficient to file charge sheet. Accordingly, the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections.307, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of Arms Act came to be filed against the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 was char
