Back
ILESH J. VORA, S. V. PINTO
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
AMARSINH CHURAMANI YADAV @ PAPPU – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. This enhancement appeal is being filed by the State of Gujarat under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short) against the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case nos. 154 of 2004 and 245 of 2005, wherein, the respondents-original accused no. 7 and 9 alongwith other accused came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 394/397 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (old) (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 25(1B) of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 (‘B.P. Act’ in short). The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, convicted the respondents under Sections 394/397 of the IPC and they were sentenced as under:
| Accused | Sections of IPC | Punishment | Fine | In default |
| Accused No. 7 - Amarsinh Churamani Yadav @ Pappu | 394/397 | SI for seven years | Rs. 5,000/- | SI for three months |
| Accused no. 9 - Kishanlal @ Kishnakumar Mekulal Japya | 394/397 | SI for seven years | Rs. 5,000/- | SI for three months |
The appellate court upheld the trial court's discretion in sentencing, affirming that the imposed 7-year sentence was adequate given the circumstances of the robbery and the use of a firearm.
The essence of criminal conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit an illegal act, which must be established by sufficient evidence; mere allegations are inadequate for conviction.
The court clarified that for conviction under Section 397 IPC, the prosecution must prove grievous injury and involvement of five persons, which was not established in this case.
Conviction upheld for bank robbery based on credible witness testimonies; sentence modified to imprisonment already served.
Convictions for conspiracy and robbery under specific IPC sections were challenged due to unreliable evidence and identified inconsistencies.
The prosecution must prove common intention for liability under Section 34 IPC; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
Use of weapon to constitute offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that ‘offender’ should actually fire from firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but mere exhibition of same,....
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings in acquittal appeals unless they are proven to be perverse or arbitrary.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
