IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100 of 2003 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus MANIBHAI MOHANBHAI RAVAL ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS MONALI BHATT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1 HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 MR. RADHESH Y VYAS(7060) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Date : 07/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)

1. The State has challenged the judgment and order dated

01.10.2002 passed by the Fast Track Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case no.26 of 2002, aggrieved by the order of acquittal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for short).

The accused came to be convicted under Section 324 of IPC and was ordered to undergo sentence of eleven months rigorous imprisonment and for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, one month rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, seven days further imprisonment. The accused was ordered to undergo the sentence concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for short); further set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. was also granted.

2. The case, as was drawn against the accused by way of charge below Exh.3, was that earlier there was a Chapter Case at Gheekanta Court against the complainant and his son – Babubhai and for the settlement, the complainant son – Babubhai, on 22.10.2001 at about 21.30 hrs., he headed to Jetalpur Gam, Raval Vas towards the house of the accused and at that time, the accused suddenly got excited and and abused him with foul expression. At that time, the complainant asked not to abuse them and thus, it was alleged that the accused brought iron sickle (Dhariya) from his house and with an intention to kill his son – Babubhai, gave a blow on his head, who died during the treatment and therefore, the charge under Section 302 of IPC was drawn against the accused.

3. Similarly, on that date, time and place, it was alleged that the accused had also assaulted the complainant with the Dhariya and to resist the blow, he had raised both his hands and thus, sustained injuries and therefore, too, the accused was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 326 of IPC. Further, the charge under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act was drawn for the breach of the declaration for prohibition of the weapons.

4. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP for the State, referring to the testimony of about 17 witnesses examined by the prosecution, submitted that the learned Trial Court Judge had erred in not convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC, where the complainant has very clearly deposed in his evidence about the injuries sustained by him and also the fact that he was accompanied by his son deceased Babubhai who too had suffered the injuries at the hands of the accused. Ms. Bhatt, learned APP submitted that the evidence of Lalji Shiva and Budha Soma ought to have been considered as an eye-witness and further stated that the corroborative evidence of the witness – Maulik Raval who took the deceased as well as the injured in his loading rickshaw, supports the fact of the injury as well as death.

5. Ms. Bhatt, learned APP submitted that PW7 – Ranjanben Babubhai, PW8 – Anandiben Dineshbhai, PW9 – Laduben Mathurbhai, PW10 – Laliben Maganbhai and PW11 – Champaben Dahyabhai were also the eye-witnesses to the incident who had deposed about the assault made by the accused. Ms. Bhatt, lear