Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 950
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
G.B. Shah, J.
Chhatrasinh Narsingbhai Damor – Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2012
Decided On : 21-06-2016
For the Appellant :J.M. Buddhbhatti and M.J. Buddhbhatti, Advocates.
For the Respondent: K.L. Pandya, A.P.P.
Headnote:
Medical Evidence - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 304 Part-II, Section 326 - [304 Part-II, 326] - The court discussed the medical evidence and the injuries sustained by the victims, particularly focusing on the treatment provided and the potential for the deceased to have survived with proper and timely treatment. The court considered the medical certificates and the testimony of the doctors to determine the severity of the injuries and the impact of the treatment provided. The court ultimately reduced the sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under section 304 Part-II of IPC from ten years to seven years, based on the medical evidence and the principle of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the accused inflicted injuries on multiple individuals, resulting in the death of one victim. The prosecution presented medical evidence and witness testimonies to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-II and section 326 of IPC, while acquitting the accused for other charges. The court considered the medical evidence and the treatment provided to the victims in reaching its decision.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the severity of the injuries inflicted by the accused and the adequacy of the treatment provided to the victims, particularly focusing on the potential for the deceased to have survived with proper and timely treatment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to reduce the sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under section 304 Part-II of IPC was based on the assessment of the medical evidence and the principle of justice.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was partly allowed, and the sentence imposed on the appellant-original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of IPC was reduced from RI for ten years to RI for seven years. The remaining part of the impugned judgment remained unaltered, and sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
G.B. Shah, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-original accused No. 1 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dahod, in Sessions Case No. 50 of 2009 whereby original accused No. 1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC' for short) and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC. He was, however, acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 302, 324, 323, 504 and 114 of IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was given set off for the period undergone in jail. Original accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted of all the charges leveled against them.
2. Short facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 14.9.2009 when father of the complainant-Dilipbhai Ansubhai, Mr. Ansubhai Varsingbhai was returning after eating "Navai" (new product of food) from paternal aunt's house at Shangasar in Kanakuva Village, accused-Chhatrasing Narsing armed with sickle, Nabla Varsingbhai armed with stick and Narsingbhai Valachandbhai caught hold of his father and abused him by uttering words "tane ghadi hagadu" and inflicted sickle blow on upper elbow of left hand. When father of the complainant shouted, the complainant along with his uncle-Mansukhbhai Varsingbhai (deceased), Bhalubhai Varsingbhai, Hemtabhai Motiyabhai and Parvin Parsingbhai ran there and tried to intervene. At that time, accused No. 1-Chhatrasing Narsing inflicted one sickle blow above the elbow of right hand and two sickle blows on wrist and finger of Mansukhbhai Varsingbhai resulted into amputation of his two fingers. When Bhalubhai Varsingbhai tried to intervene, accused No. 1 inflicted stone blow on his shoulder and accused No. 2-Nabla Narsing caused bite injury on the left chest of Hamesh Varsingbhai. The accused thereafter fled from the scene. The injured were thereafter taken to a hospital at Dahod. However, Mansukhbhai Varsingbhai succumbed to the injuries during treatment. A complaint was, therefore, filed against the accused. In pursuance of said complaint, investigation started and as there appeared prima facie case against the accused, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.
2.1 As the offence was triable exclusively by Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter charge was framed against the accused which was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution was asked to prove the guilt against the accused.
2.2 To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined following witnesses:-
P.W. No.
Name of Witness
Exhibit No.
1.
Dilipbhai Ansubhai Damor
7
2.
Dr. Amit Ranjan Chaudhary
15
3.
Dr. Ashok Devidas Bachani
21
4.
Dr. Amar Bipinchandra Soni
25
5.
Ansubhai Varsingbhai Damor
33
6.
Bhalubhai Varsingbhai Damor
35
7.
Hamesh Varsingbhai Damor
36
8.
Nanabhai Muliabhai Sangod
37
9.
Parubhai Naniabhai Sangod
39
10.
Hamirbhai Kehrabhai Bamania
41
11.
Ransingbhai Ditabhai Sangada
42
12.
Kalubhai Mansingbhai
44
13.
Chhaganbhai Narsubhai Palas
45
14.
Bharatsinh Jhurharbhai
47
15.
Rameshbhai Saburbhai
49
16.
Jorsingbhai Hursingbhai
50
17.
Narvatbhai Namlabhai Parmar
51
18.
Laljibhai Maganbhai
