IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. PARDIWALA, VIRESHKUMAR B. MAYANI, JJ.
Anil @ Natho Rameshbhai Pansuriya (Patel) – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1469 of 2014
Decided On : 11-03-2020
Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 393 and 188 - Appeal is at instance of an accused convict for offences punishable - Appellant was put on trial in court for offences enumerated above - Trial court held appellant accused guilty of offences enumerated above and sentenced accused for offence of murder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of default of payment of amount of fine six months of further rigorous imprisonment - Accused was not successful in snatching away bag from the hands of deceased as offered resistance and caught hold of accused - at any cost wanted to run away with bag containing money, and at same time deceased was not ready to give up - While grappling was going on accused is alleged to have taken out a knife from his pocket and inflicted a blow straight into chest of deceased accused thereafter tried to make good his escape but people in surrounding area caught hold of accused - Mob also thrashed accused severely - As thrashing was quite serious a hands of people where incident occurred an ambulance had to be called for and accused was sent for medical treatment to Civil Hospital - On other hand on account of injury suffered by deceased in his chest started bleeding profusely - Held, court must address itself to question of Clause thirdly of is to be applied assailant must intend particular injury inflicted on deceased - This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence - Inevitably is a matter of inference to be drawn from proved circumstances of case - Court must necessarily have regard to nature of weapon used part of body injured extent of injury degree of force used in causing injury manner of attack circumstances preceding and attendant on attack - Court decision of Supreme Court to extent it makes a statement of law that before an accused is held guilty and punished first part or second part of IPC a death must have been caused by him any of mentioned in five exceptions to IPC is partially incorrect - Appeal dismissed(Para 67)
Facts of the Case:
The incident in question occurred on 17th January 2009 in the evening opposite Shri Welcome Garden Restaurant situated on the main road leading from the Heerabaug Circle to Kamrej Varachha Road, Surat. The deceased was a businessman aged 50 years at the time of the incident. The deceased used to work between 8:00 in the morning till almost 8:00 in the evening. On the date of the incident, the deceased was passing through the street with a black coloured handbag in his hand. The bag contained money.
Finding of the Court:
Court must address itself to question of Clause thirdly of is to be applied assailant must intend particular injury inflicted on deceased - This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence - Inevitably is a matter of inference to be drawn from proved circumstances of case - Court must necessarily have regard to nature of weapon used part of body injured extent of injury degree of force used in causing injury manner of attack circumstances preceding and attendant on attack - Court decision of Supreme Court to extent it makes a statement of law that before an accused is held guilty and punished first part or second part of IPC a death must have been caused by him any of mentioned in five exceptions to IPC is partially incorrect.
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. This Appeal is at the instance of an accused-convict for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 393 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The appellant herein was put on trial in the court of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in the Sessions Case No. 65 of 2010 for the offences enumerated above. The trial court held the appellant accused guilty of the offences enumerated above and sentenced the accused for the offence of murder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of the payment of the amount of fine, six months of further rigorous imprisonment.
3. The accused also came to be sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of the payment of the amount of fine, two months of further rigorous imprisonment.
4. The accused also came to be sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
5. The incident in question occurred on 17th January 2009 in the evening opposite Shri Welcome Garden Restaurant situated on the main road leading from the Heerabaug Circle to Kamrej Varachha Road, Surat. The deceased was a businessman aged 50 years at the time of the incident. The deceased used to work between 8:00 in the morning till almost 8:00 in the evening. On the date of the incident, the deceased was passing through the street with a black coloured handbag in his hand. The bag contained money. It is the case of the prosecution that at that point of time the accused came near the deceased and tried to snatch away the bag containing money. The accused was not successful in snatching away the bag from the hands of the deceased as the deceased offered resistance and caught hold of the accused. The accused, at any cost, wanted to run away with the bag containing money, and at the same time, the deceased was not ready to give up. While the grappling was going on, the accused is alleged to have taken out a knife from his pocket and inflicted a blow straight into the chest of the deceased. The accused thereafter tried to make good his escape but the people in the surrounding area caught hold of the accused. The mob also thrashed the accused severely. As the thrashing was quite serious at the hands of the people where the incident occurred, an ambulance had to be called for and the accused was sent for medical treatment to the Civil Hospital. On the other hand, on account of the injury suffered by the deceased in his chest, he started bleeding profusely. One Dharmeshbhai Jivrajbhai Patel (original first informant) known to the deceased incidentally happened to be present at the time of the incident. Dharmeshbhai Patel immediately called for 108-Ambulance and took the deceased to the Ayush Hospital. However, by the time the deceased could reach the hospital, he succumbed to the injury. The deceased was declared dead by the doctors of the Ayush Hospital on arrival. Dharmesh Jivraj Patel PW-14 lodged the FIR (Exh.49). The FIR (Exh.49) dated 17th January 2009 reads thus:
That I reside with my family at the above mentioned address and having an agency of Ultra Tech cement. I am running a shop in the name and style of Patel Traders situated at the Plot No. 2, Purvi Society, Heerabaug Society, Varachha. I am also having an office situated at the Shreeji Complex, which is 400 feet away from my shop, for the purpose of maintaining the accounts of my business. The aforesaid shop is looked after by my paternal cousin (aunt's son) Dhirubhai Parshottambhai Bodariya, aged ab
Harendra Nath Mandal vs. State of Bihar
Jagrup Singh vs. State of Haryana
Kapur Singh vs. State of Pepsu
Masumsha Hasansha Musalman vs. State of Maharashtra
Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh vs. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh
Phulia Tudu vs. State of Bihar
Rampal Singh vs. State of U.P. (2012) 8 SCC 289
Rajwant Singh vs. State of Kerala
State of A.P. vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya
Smt. Mathri vs. State of Punjab
Tholan vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Vineet Kumar Chauhan vs. State of U.P. (2007) 14 SCC 660
Vaghari Kala Bhikha and Others vs. State
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.