Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.
Amitji Amarsinh Thakor and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat – Respondents
Criminal Appeal (Against Conviction) No. 1253 of 2013
Decided On: 18.02.2016
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant :A.B. Gateshaniya, Advocate
For Respondents: H.L. Jani, APP
The court considered the totality of the facts and circumstances, including the nature of the injuries and the trivial nature of the incident, in reaching its decision to modify the sentence.
Headnote:
Section 376 - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code - Section 323 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 357 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appeal of the accused persons against their conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting the complainant. The incident arose from a verbal altercation over a trivial matter between neighbors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injury to the complainant was established by medical evidence, but also noted the cordial relations between the parties and the trivial nature of the incident. The court allowed the appeal partly, modifying the sentence to a fine and directing the accused to pay compensation to the victim.
Issues: The issues involved the assault on the complainant, the nature of the injuries, and the appropriate sentence for the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the medical evidence, the trivial nature of the incident, and the provisions of Section 323 of the IPC in reaching its decision to modify the sentence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed partly, modifying the sentence to a fine and directing the accused to pay compensation to the victim.
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.
1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellants - Original Accused persons under Section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the impugned judgment and order rendered in Special Atrocity Case No. 16 of 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Gandhinagar dated 19.8.2013 recording conviction of the Appellants - Accused persons for the offences under Section 323of the Indian Penal Code imposing the sentence of SI for 15 days and fine of Rs. 1000/- by each of the Appellants - Accused persons.
The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows.
2. On 8.1.2011, the Complainant came out of her house on hearing the abuses to the husband and the children and she found that the Appellants - Accused persons were abusing them. Thereupon the Complaint is said to have intervened for not abusing by filthy language. The Appellants - Accused persons are said to have assaulted the Complainant and given her a slap. Thereafter when the sister-in-law and brother-in-law came, the Appellants - Accused persons ran away while further giving abuses about the caste which ultimately led to the complaint being II CR No. 6/2011.
3. On the basis of the complaint, the investigation was made and as the case is triable by the learned Special Judge, it was committed before the learned Special Judge (Atrocity). The learned Special Judge proceeded with the trial on appreciation of the material and evidence and recorded the conviction of the Appellants - Accused persons as stated herein above. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed in the present Appeal by the Appellants - Accused persons on the grounds stated in the Appeal.
4. Heard learned Advocate Shri A.B. Gateshaniya for the Appellants - Accused persons and learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the Respondent - State of Gujarat.
5. Learned Advocate Shri A.B. Gateshaniya for the Appellants - Accused persons referred to the testimony of the Dr. Parul Shankarlal Parasara PW-1 at Exh. 10 referring to the history and also the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 at Exh. 13 and 15 who turned hostile. Learned Advocate Shri Gateshaniya also referred to the other evidence and the testimony of PW-4 at Exh. 17 and submitted that it raises doubt about the manner in which the certificate is issued. Learned Advocate Shri Gateshaniya referred to and relied upon the judgment of the High Court reported in 2007 (3) GLH 701in case of Rafikbhai S. Dodiya and Ors. v. State of Gujarat. He also referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in 2011(0) GLHEL-HC 224747 in case of Frukshah Latifshah Diwan v. State of Gujarat.
6. Alternatively, it was submitted that while maintaining the conviction, the court may impose the fine instead of imprisonment considering the background of the facts that they have been neighbours having a cordial relation and therefore the present Appeal may be allowed.
7. Learned APP Shri H.L. Jani resisted the Appeal and also referred to the evidence and submitted that the assault and injuries is established. However, he submitted that the defect in the investigation is not fatal. He submitted that in any case the judgment reported in 2009 (0) GLHEL-SC 43618 in case of State of M.P. v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh provided that even if the investigation is faulty, but, if the charges are also for the offences under the IPC along with the offence under the Atrocity Act, the same could be investigated for the offence under the IPC and it would not vitiate the entire investigation and trial. Learned APP Shri H.L. Jani therefore submitted that appropriate order may be passed with regard to the alternate submission while maintaining the conviction.
8. In view of this rival submissions and having regard to the background of the facts and circumstances, the injury to the complainant is established by medical evidence in the form of testimony of Dr. Parul PW-1 at Exh. 10. The injury certificate is also produced at Exh. 11 which refer to a simple injury.
