Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/35419/1987 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 354 of 1987
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 394 of 1987
To
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 395 of 1987
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
NANDLAL
PRANSHANKER & 6 - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KJ SHETHNA for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 7.
Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, APP, for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 30/07/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)
In
these appeals the accused have been convicted under Section 304
Part-I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years and also under Sections 323 and 324 of the
Indian Penal Code. An application for compounding of the offence has
been filed. The application filed is in relation to the offences
under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly,
compounding of the offences is permitted and the accused is acquitted
of those charges levelled against them.
As
regards conviction under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code,
since compounding is not permissible, we have taken cognizance that
the parties have compromised and have entered into a peaceful
agreement. So keeping in view of the fact that the parties are
closely related and residents of the same village, it would not be
appropriate to maintain the sentence under Section 304 Part-I of the
Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, we reduce the substantive sentence
under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code for the period
undergone by the accused and enhance the fine to Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees
two thousand five hundred). To the aforesaid extent the appeal is
allowed. Appeals filed by the State are dismissed.
(BHAGWATI PRASAD, J)
(S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J)
(pkn)
Top