IMPORTANT POINT
The court found that the appellants' actions during a sudden quarrel constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, justifying a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 03.11.2018 passed by the learned 6th Additional (Adhoc) Sessions Judge, Panchmahals @ Godhra (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2017. The appellants were put on trial for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 324, 326, 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment (simple imprisonment) and fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) and in default, simple imprisonment for ten days for the offence under Section 302 and 114 of the IPC and to simple imprisonment for three years for the offence under Sections 324, 326, 114 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court was pleased to give benefit of doubt to both the appellants for the offences under Sections 504 and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and further ordered both the sentences to run concurrently and the period of detention of the appellants was to be given as a set off against the sentence.

The appellants are referred to as the accused as they stood in the rank and file in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. FACTUAL MATRIX

2.1 From the evidence on record it appears that both the accused, the complainant-Ram Ramshankar Prahlad Yadav, the deceased Bhavsinh Thakor and the child in conflict with law were working at Parvadi in Yamuna Proteins Mills and they were given a room by the Company to reside in. On 30.10.2016, they all were playing cards in the room of the Ram Ramshankar Yadav and while they were playing cards, they had a verbal altercation and a quarrel and the accused and the child in conflict with law got agitated and at that time, both the accused took iron pipes in their hands and the child in conflict with law took an iron strip and assaulted Bhavsinh Thakor with the intention of causing his death. Bhavsinh Thakor sustained serious injuries on his head, hands and other parts of his body and when the complainant tried to intervene to save Bhavsinh Thakor, the accused assaulted him and he too sustained injuries on his right hand. That all the assailants left Bhavsinh Thakor injured and bleeding in the room and ran away and as the complainant shouted, Amit Bhatia who was working in the Company, brought the complainant for treatment to the hospital and as the injuries of Bhavsinh Thakor were more serious he was taken to the hospital at Vadodara for further treatment where he succumbed to his injuries. The complaint was filed by the injured witness-Ram Ramshankar Prahlad Yadav before the Godhra Taluka Police Station under Sections 302, 307, 325, 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the GP Act which was registered at C. R. No. 222 of 2016 on 30.10.2016.

2.2 The Investigating Officer collected the evidence, drew the necessary panchnamas including the Inquest Panchnama and sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem, the statements of the connected witnesses were recorded and as the involvement of the accused was found in the offence, the accused were arrested and after the FSL reports were received, a charge sheet came to be filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panchmahals at Godhra and as the case was exclusively triable by the Session Court, Panchmahals at Godhra, a committal order under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was passed and the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 36 of 2017. When the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, it was verified whether the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was complied with and a charge was framed against the accused at Exh.11 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.12 and Exh.13 respectively. The accused denied all the contents of the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on