The emotional state of the accused, stemming from a tumultuous love relationship, justified a reduction in sentence, emphasizing a humane approach in sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2009 is concerned, the same has been preferred by the appellant-State under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for enhancing the sentence imposed upon the respondent vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Main Court), Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2008. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the learned Sessions Judge found the respondent-accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 506(2) and 309 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the BP Act, and consequently, sentenced him as under:

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2009 is concerned, the same has been preferred by the appellant-accused under section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against conviction for the offence under sections 307, 309, 452 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the BP Act vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Main Court), Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2008.

3. As both these appeals arise out of the selfsame judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, the same are heard and decided together by this common judgment. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2009 and respondent of Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2009 is referred to as the accused as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

4. The broad facts of the case are as under.

4.1 It is the case of the prosecution that complainant-Sumitraben, was residing at Dalbhai Muvadi, village Kadjodara along with his family and serving as teacher and has a daughter viz., Nikita aged about 18 years. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19/04/2008 at about 5:00 O'clock in the evening the complainant came to her home and at that time her daughter was also present. That between 6:00 and 6:15 p.m. Dinesh-son of their neighbour-Ramanbhai Mangalbhai Prajapati came to their house and told Nikita that he loves her and cannot live without her and why did she decide to get married to someone else without asking him and why did she not refuse to marry the other person and in furtherance started to beat her with a gupti. That the accused had given blows of gupti on wrist of the left hand, stomach and on the backside of the daughter of the complainant and sustained her injures with fist blows. That the daughter of the complainant was bleeding, however the complainant intervened and rescued her from further beating. That when the complainant started shouting, the accused also caused himself injuries with the gupti. That the accused had given threat to the daughter of the complainant that as he loves her, he will kill her and he will also die and told her to ask her parents to break their engagement otherwise he will also kill her parents and the accused thereafter left the place. It is alleged that accused person was harassing the daughter of the complainant since last twelve months and the accused was having a love affair with the daughter of complainant and as she was engaged to someone else, he got excited, went to house of the complainant and sustained serious injuries to the daughter of the complainant with iron gupti and thereby made attempt to commit murder of the daughter of the complainant and hence, the complaint came to be lodged.

4.2 On the basis of complaint, investigation was carried out. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of various witnesses, seized the muddamal weapon under the panchnama and arrested the accused.

4.3 On