Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/1666/2010 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1666 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)
Versus
RANCHHODBHAI
SODABHAI DABHI (KOLI) - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KARTIK PANDYA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 21/07/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA)
The
appellant – State of Gujarat, preferred this appeal u/s.377 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence awarded
by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No.37
of 2009 to the respondent – accused.
The
learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Surendranagar vide judgment and order
dated 5.7.2010, rendered in Sessions Case No.37 of 2009, recorded
conviction of the respondent – original accused No.1 of the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w.Section 34 of the
IPC. The respondent – original accused No.1 was ordered to
undergo RI for life and fine of Rs.10000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and RI for three years and
fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 of
the IPC. Learned APP for the appellant submitted that considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record,
the trial Court should have awarded capital punishment to the
respondent – accused for the offence. He submitted that it is
true that considering the evidence on record, in the incident,
respondent – accused killed deceased Hemubhai and then threw
the dead-body of the deceased in a well, so as to destroy the
evidence, but it is submitted that the fact that after killing the
deceased, the respondent – accused threw the dead-body of the
deceased in a well, and thereby attempted to destroy the evidence,
would turn this case within the category of rarest in rare case.
Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal deserves admission.
We
have perused the impugned judgment and order rendered by the trial
Court. After recording the conviction of the respondent –
accused, the trial Court called upon both the sides to address the
Court on the count of sentence. The trial Court, after considering
the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, and more
particularly, in paragraph 45 in the impugned judgment, clearly
observed that the prosecution case cannot be said to be rarest in
rare case and, ultimately, awarded the sentence of imprisonment for
life. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that after killing
the deceased, the respondent – accused threw the dead-body in
a well, so as to destroy the evidence of the prosecution case and,
therefore, the case falls within the category of rarest in rare
case. There is no dispute that the accused was charged for the
offence of murder, punishable u/s.302 of the IPC as well as he was
also charged for the offence causing disappearance of evidence
u/s.201 of the IPC and, ultimately, the trial Court recorded the
conviction of the accused in connection with both the offences. To
put it differently, for causing disappearance of evidence, the
accused was appropriately punished by the trial Court. In that view
of the matter, we do not find any reason in the instant case to
interfere with the order of sentence passed by the trial Court. The
appeal preferred by the appellant – State of Gujarat u/s.377
of the Cr.P.C., deserves no consideration and is not required to be
admitted and deserves to be dismissed.
For
the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands dismissed.
(D.H.WAGHELA,
J.)
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
(binoy)
Top