Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/919/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 919 of 2011
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 94 of 2011
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 94 of 2011
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
RANCHHODBHAI
SOMABHAI PARMAR - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
CM SHAH, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for
Applicant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 08/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA)
The
applicant – appellant – State filed this application
seeking condonation of delay of 10 days in preferring the appeal
u/s.377 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the adequacy of
the sentence awarded by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Vadodara on
25.10.2010 in Sessions Case No.124 of 2009 whereby the respondent
herein, who was original accused in said sessions case, came to be
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC
and was sentenced to undergo S.I for 5 years and fine of Rs.5000,
and in default of payment of fine, S.I for 3 months.
Ms.Shah,
learned APP, for the applicant – appellant – State
submitted that the delay of 10 days came to be caused solely on
account of administrative reasons, as the delay occurred in getting
the sanction order for the purpose of preferring the appeal. The
delay is sufficiently explained in the application, and the contents
of the application are supported by the affidavit of Under Secretary
of the Legal Department of the State. Ms.Shah further submitted that
considering the fact that the trial Court recorded conviction of the
respondent – accused for the serious offence punishable
u/s.307 of the IPC, yet, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is
unduly lenient and disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime
committed by the accused. It is, therefore, submitted that the
applicant – appellant has good case and if the delay is not
condoned, the meritorious case of the applicant – appellant
shall be adversely affected, which shall cause great prejudice to
the appellant.
Since
Ms.Shah, learned APP, for the applicant – appellant –
State has submitted that the applicant – appellant –
State has meritorious case and if the delay is not condoned, the
appellant – State shall suffer great prejudice, we deem it
expedient to examine impugned judgment and order rendered by the
trial Court and especially the reasons assigned by the trial Court
while determining the quantum of sentence. There is no dispute that
the injured and the respondent – accused belong to the same
family. On account of the incident, FIR was filed against the
accused and, ultimately, there is no dispute the trial Court
recorded his conviction for the offence punishable u/s.307 of the
IPC. After recording the conviction of the accused, both the sides,
namely, the prosecution as well as the accused were heard on the
count of sentence by the trial Court. While exercising the
discretion in determining the quantum of sentence, the trial Court
took into consideration not only the fact that the accused and the
injured belong to the same family and they are family members, but
also observed that to see that in future the family relationship is
not ruined, lenient view while fixing the sentence was required to
be taken. At the same time the trial Court also took into
consideration the nature of the offence proved against the accused.
It is further clear that there was no adverse criminal antecedence
against the respondent – accused. Taking into consideration
all these aspects, the trial Court exercised its discretion while
determining the quantum of sentence. We do not find any infirmity or
any illegality committed by the trial Court while fixing the quantum
of sentence. There does not appear that the trial Court exercised
its discretion either arbitrarily or perversely. Thus, we do not
find any merits in the appeal. When such is the situation, we are of
the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served even
if the delay in preferring such appeal is condoned and the appeal is
admitted.
For
the foregoing reasons, both the application for condonation of delay
and the appeal stand dismissed.
(D.H.WAGHELA,
J.)
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
(binoy)
Top