2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8458
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
IJV, PMR
SAMIRBHAI MADHUKANTBHAI SHAH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.
2 of 2025 In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 467 of 2025 ==========================================================
SAMIRBHAI MADHUKANTBHAI SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
NIMIT Y SHUKLA(8338) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR L B DABHI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 13/08/2025
IA ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.
2. The present Applicant - Org. accused No. 4 in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2017 has preferred the present application under Section 430 of the BNS-2023, praying for suspension of sentence against the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.01.2025, passed by the learned 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2017. The present applicant is charged with commission of crime under provisions of Sections 302, 364, 341 read with Section 120B of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
3. On conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Court held the present Applicant guilty for offence punishable under Section 302, 120B and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, and in default thereof, to suffer three months’ simple imprisonment and under Section 364 read with Section 120B, the applicant is convicted to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 25,000/-, and in default thereof, to suffer three months’ simple imprisonment. For committing the offence under Section 341 read with Section 120B of the IPC, the applicant was sentenced to undergo one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹100/-, and in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for three days. Lastly, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the present applicant under the provisions of Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months and a fine of ₹1,000/-, and in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days.
4. The facts relevant in the present case, as far as the present Applicant is concerned, in a nutshell, are as follows:
4.1 That deceased Dineshbhai Maganbhai Dakshini, was employed at the Oil Depot at Rajmoti Oil Mill at Kalupur, Ahmedabad, and had allegedly committed financial embezzlement. For that reason, he was taken to Rajkot from Ahmedabad on the night of 28th February 2016 at around 9:30 p.m. by one Sameer Gandhi and another person, namely Kripal Singh Chudasama, who was the driver of the vehicle.
4.2 The deceased was then locked up in the Oil Mill at Rajkot and was assaulted with a baseball bat. On the next date, i.e., 1st March 2016, at around 7:00 p.m., the deceased was taken to Bedipara Police Chowki, where he was again assaulted by the present applicant at the instance of Sameer Gandhi, Madhukant Shah, and his father. After the appellant assaulted the deceased, he became unconscious and eventually passed away on 1st March 2016 at 11:18 p.m.
4.3 Pursuant thereto, an FIR came to be registered as CR No. 66 of 2016 before the B-Division Police Station, Rajkot, on 2nd March 2016. After filing of the charge sheet, committal of the case to the Sessions Court, examination of witnesses, and by relying upon documentary evidence, the present Applicant came to be convicted as stated hereinabove.
4.4 It is against this judgment and order of conviction that the Criminal Appeal is filed by the present applicant and by way of the present Application the Applicant sought for suspension of sentence.
5. Ld. Senior Counsel Mr. Jal Unwalla, with Ld. Advocate Mr.
Nimit Shukla, would submit that:-
(1) The principles of mens rea have not been adequately examined by the trial court, and that the prosecution has fail