Gujarat High Court High Court

The vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008

Gujarat High Court
The vs Unknown on 19 September, 2008
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;Honourable K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.A/223920/2006	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2239 of 2006
 

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

THE
STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

DIPAKKUMAR
DAHYABHAI PATEL & 1 - Opponent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance
: 
Mr.PRADIP BHATE, ADDL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1, 
None for Opponent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 19/09/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)

The
present appeal is filed under section 377 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for enhancement of sentence against the judgement and order
dated 29th June 2005 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, 4th Fast Track Court, Nadiad, in Sessions Case
No.209 of 2004, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to convict the
accused for offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code ( IPC
for brevity) and awarded only four years of simple imprisonment,
and fine of Rs.1000/- each, and in default six months of simple
imprisonment. The learned APP submitted that the learned Presiding
Officer has erred in taking a very lenient view in the matter. He
submitted that looking to the nature of the injuries caused by the
accused to the deceased-Shantilal Lallubhai Patel and Kamlaben
Shatilal Patel, the learned Judge ought to have awarded maximum
punishment under section 326 of the IPC, viz. imprisonment for life
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and fine – could have been awarded to the
accused.

2. Admit.

As issuance of bailable warrant is ordered in Criminal Appeal No.861
of 2006, the same is not passed in this appeal.

(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.)

(K.M. THAKER, J.)

karim

   

Top