Gujarat High Court Reduces Sentence from 7 to 5 Years, Cites Parity with Co-Accused

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court, comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice P. M. Raval, has modified the sentences of several appellants convicted in a series of heinous crimes, reducing their maximum imprisonment from seven to five years. The court invoked the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused, convicted on the same evidence in a separate trial, had received a lesser sentence.

---

Case Background: A Calculated Crime Spree

The appeals stemmed from a 2003 judgment by the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, which convicted the appellants for a crime spree in August 2001. The gang, operating under the guise of an "Anti Corruption Movement," employed a sinister modus operandi. They would kidnap innocent individuals, confine them in an industrial shed, assault them, take nude photographs for blackmail, commit unnatural sex, and extort money.

Three separate FIRs were filed, leading to the trial and conviction of the accused under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including kidnapping (S.365), extortion (S.384), robbery (S.392), and unnatural offences (S.377). The trial court sentenced them to a maximum of seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

Appellants' Arguments vs. Prosecution's Stand

The appellants challenged the conviction on several grounds: - Flawed Identification: They argued that the victims did not know them previously and that the Test Identification (TI) Parade was unreliable. - Lack of Common Intention: The defense contended that the prosecution failed to establish a pre-arranged plan or a meeting of minds required to invoke vicarious liability under Section 34 of the IPC. - Unreliable Witness Testimonies: They claimed the victims' statements were uncorroborated, and there was an unexplained delay in filing the FIRs.

The State, represented by APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat, countered that the victims were injured witnesses, lending high credibility to their testimony. Their accounts were corroborated by medical evidence, and the gang's systematic method clearly indicated a pre-planned conspiracy and common intention.

High Court's Analysis and Key Findings

The High Court meticulously re-appreciated the evidence, upholding most of the trial court's findings on the conviction.

"The manner in which the pre-arranged plan systematically and with all smartness being executed which further rise to presumption that the accused had a common intention to commit the offence."

The bench found the testimonies of the three injured victims to be "truthful," "reliable," and confidence-inspiring. The court dismissed the challenges regarding identification and FIR delays, deeming the victims' explanations plausible given the trauma they endured. It affirmed that the gang's consistent modus operandi across all three incidents was sufficient proof of a shared common intention under Section 34 of the IPC.

While largely upholding the convictions, the court acquitted the appellants of charges under Section 325 (grievous hurt) and Section 328 (causing hurt by poison) due to insufficient evidence.

The Principle of Parity in Sentencing

The pivotal aspect of the judgment was the modification of the sentence. The appellants' counsel highlighted that a co-accused, Ravindra Khushwal, who was tried separately, was sentenced to only five years for the same crimes based on the same set of evidence.

The High Court agreed with this argument, stating:

"It is on record that the role of the appellants vis-a-vis the A5 Ravindra is not distinct; all stands on the same footing in terms of participation, involvement and culpability... In such circumstances, in our opinion, in absence of any exceptional circumstances, there must be a parity in the sentence also and therefore, the appellants are entitled to have their sentence brought down to the level of co-accused Ravindra Kushwal."

Final Verdict

The Gujarat High Court partly allowed the criminal appeals. It upheld the convictions under Sections 365, 367, 342, 384, 323, 377, 392, and 506(1) of the IPC but set aside the conviction under Sections 325 and 328. Consequently, the maximum sentence for each appellant was reduced from seven years to five years of rigorous imprisonment, with all sentences to run concurrently. The appellants, who were out on bail, have been directed to surrender within eight weeks to serve the remainder of their sentences.