{"id":137158,"date":"2008-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-25T10:15:07","modified_gmt":"2019-03-25T04:45:07","slug":"parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Parshotambhai vs State on 6 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Parshotambhai vs State on 6 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/1141\/2006\t 2\/ 13\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 1141 of 2006\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 1582 of 2006\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n \n \n=========================================================\n<\/pre>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
To be
\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the
\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n<\/p>\n
=========================================================<\/p>\n
PARSHOTAMBHAI
\nAMTHABHAI NAI – Appellant(s)<\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
STATE
\nOF GUJARAT – Opponent(s)<\/p>\n
=========================================================<\/p>\n
Appearance
\n:\n<\/p>\n
In
\nboth matters :\n<\/p>\n
MR
\nMEHUL SHARAD SHAH for
\nAppellant(s) : 1,MR APURVA R KAPADIA for Appellant(s) : 1,
\nMR UR
\nBHATT, APP for Opponent(s) :\n<\/p>\n
1,
\n=========================================================<\/p>\n
CORAM
\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA<\/p>\n
Date
\n: 06\/10\/2008 <\/p>\n
ORAL
\nCOMMON JUDGMENT <\/p>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA)<\/p>\n
\t\tCriminal
\nAppeal No. 1141 of 2006 came to be preferred by the appellant, who
\nwas original accused in Sessions Case No. 156\/1995, against judgment
\nand order dated 18\/4\/2006 rendered by the Ld. Presiding Officer, 7th
\nFast Track Court, Palanpur, [for short ‘Ld. Trial Judge’] in the
\naforesaid Sessions Case convicting the appellant accused for the
\noffences punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]
\nand under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act [BP Act] and awarding
\nsentence of rigorous imprisonment [RI] for 5 years and fine of
\nRs.3,000\/-, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3
\nmonths for offence punishable under section 326 of the IPC and fine
\nof Rs.500\/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
\nimprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section
\n135 of the BP Act.  Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order
\nof conviction recorded by the Ld. Trial Judge, the original accused
\npreferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tHowever,
\nCriminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2006 came to be preferred  by the State
\nof Gujarat under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.
\nP.C] requesting that the sentence awarded by the Ld. Trial Judge is
\nvery lenient and deserves to be enhanced.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe
\nprosecution case, in nut shell, is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
3.1.\t\tOn
\n7\/9\/1995 at about 9.00 p m in the City of Deesa, near the office of
\nthe Executive Magistrate, the accused inflicted knife blow on the
\nleft hand side stomach of
\ndeceased Somabhai Parshottambhai. Somabhai was immediately removed to
\nGovernment Hospital at Deesa. Injured Somabhai Parshottambhai
\nlodged FIR in connection with this offence. The FIR was
\nregistered and the police   commenced   investigation.   However,
\non 16\/9\/1995 Somabhai Parshottambhai succumbed to the injury and,
\ntherefore, during the pendency of police investigation, the offence
\npunishable under section 302 of the IPC was added. After the
\ncompletion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in the Court
\nof the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa for the offences
\npunishable under section 302 of the IPC and section 135 of the BP
\nAct. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of
\nSessions, the Ld. Magistrate committed the case to the Court of
\nSessions at Palanpur.\n<\/p>\n
3.2.\t\tThe
\nLd. Trial Judge framed charge against the accused for offences
\npunishable under section 302 of the IPC and under section 135 of the
\nBP Act. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
\nTherefore, prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence.
\nAfter the prosecution concluded its evidence, the Ld. Trial Judge
\nrecorded further statement  of the accused under section 313 of the
\nCr. P.C., wherein the accused generally denied all the allegations
\nlevelled against him and filed his written submissions in support of
\nhis further statement, wherein in sum and substance   he submitted
\nthat he was wrongly implicated in this case and stated that the
\ndeceased was not in a position to give any dying declaration.\n<\/p>\n
3.3.\t\tThe
\nLd. Trial Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record and after
\nhearing arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, delivered
\nthe impugned judgment whereby the Ld. Trial Judge was pleased to
\nacquit the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of
\nthe IPC, but convicted the accused for the offences punishable under
\nsection 326 of the IPC and under section 135 of the BP Act and
\nawarded sentence as stated hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Kapadia for the appellant   accused during the course
\nof his arguments, submitted that the Ld. Trial Judge erred in
\nconvicting the accused  for the offences punishable under section 326
\nof the IPC and under section 135 of the BP Act. It is submitted that
\nthe prosecution relied upon so called oral dying declaration made
\nbefore the witnesses. However, the depositions of those witnesses
\nbefore whom the deceased said to have given oral dying declaration,
\ntheir testimonies are not consistent  and create doubt about the
\ngenuineness of the case of the prosecution. That those witnesses
\nthough deposed before the Court that upon inquiry, deceased orally
\nnarrated the incident, but considering their evidence as a whole, if
\nthose witnesses were available just nearby the scene of offence, they
\nshould have seen the actual commission of the offence; but out of the
\n4 witnesses,  only one witness named Suresh Nai submits that he had
\nseen the accused running away from the scene of offence. Thus, the
\npresence of these witnesses in the near vicinity of the scene of
\noffence cannot be believed. It is further submitted that as per the
\nprosecution case, Executive Magistrate recorded dying declaration of
\nthe deceased; but considering the deposition of the Executive
\nMagistrate Mr. Vankar, he categorically admitted that before
\nrecording dying declaration  he did not inquire the Medical Officer
\non duty about the physical and mental state of the deceased. That
\nthus no reliance can be placed upon the so called dying declaration
\nrecorded by the Executive Magistrate. It is further submitted that
\nthe prosecution relied upon the so called discovery of Muddamal
\nweapon knife, but both the panchas to the discovery panchnama have
\nturned hostile. Considering the deposition of  the Investigating
\nOfficer [IO], in his cross examination  he admitted that he had made
\nindependent search to find out the knife. That no reliance can be
\nplaced upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution in connection
\nwith discovery of the weapon knife. It is submitted that the
\nprosecution miserably failed to prove the motive behind this crime.
\nThat as per the case of the prosecution, the accused suspected that
\nthe deceased had illicit relations with his wife Ramilaben, who was
\ndivorced by him. However, considering the deposition of Ramilaben,
\nshe turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case regarding
\nthe motive. That there are major contradictions in the depositions of
\nthe witnesses examined by the prosecution. That Medical Officer on
\nduty, who administered initial treatment to the deceased, Dr. Bhati [
\nP W 1 ] stated that the deceased was brought to his hospital without
\nany police Yadi and therefore, he informed the police station by
\ntelephone. However, considering the deposition of I O as well as the
\ndeposition of P.S.O. Chataraji [ PW 16] he categorically stated that
\nhe had not received any telephone call from Dr. Bhati. That thus, the
\nevidence adduced by the prosecution is very shaky  and cannot be
\nrelied upon. Therefore, it is requested that the appeal be allowed
\nand order of conviction recorded by the Ld. Trial Judge be set aside
\nand the appellant   accused be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
4.1.\t\tIn
\nconnection with the criminal appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat
\nunder section 377 of the Cr. P.C bearing Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of
\n2006, learned advocate Mr. Kapadia for the respondent accused therein
\nsubmitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case
\nbeyond reasonable doubt and as a matter of fact, the respondent
\naccused deserves acquittal and, therefore, the question of
\nenhancement of sentence may not arise.\n<\/p>\n
4.2.\t\tOn
\nbehalf of the State of Gujarat, Ld. APP Mr. Bhatt, seriously opposing
\nthe Criminal Appeal No. 1141 of 2006 preferred by the appellant
\naccused, submitted that the prosecution successfully proved beyond
\nany reasonable doubt its case against the accused and the Ld. Trial
\nJudge rightly came to be conclusion that the accused has committed
\noffences punishable under section 326 of the IPC and section 135 of
\nthe BP Act.  That the FIR itself was lodged by the deceased  which
\nbecomes his dying declaration before the police. After the lodgement
\nof the FIR   the police recorded further statements of the deceased
\nwhich also become dying declaration before the police.  That soon
\nafter the incident when the deceased was on the place of occurrence,
\nthe deceased narrated the incident and that he was assaulted by the
\naccused, to 4 witnesses.  That over and above this, Executive
\nMagistrate recorded dying declaration of the deceased and in the
\ndying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, it bears the
\nendorsement of the Medical Officer that the deceased was in a fit
\nstate of mind to give dying declaration. That it is true that both
\nthe panchas of the panchnama regarding the discovery of weapon knife,
\nturned hostile, but considering the deposition of I O  the discovery
\npanchnama is duly proved.  That considering the serological report,
\nit clearly transpires that the knife which was recovered at the
\ninstance of the accused  had blood marks of group  B , which was
\nthe blood group of the deceased. That
\nthus the prosecution successfully proved its case and the Ld. Trial
\nJudge rightly convicted the accused  for the offences  punishable
\nunder section 326 of the IPC and section 135 of the BP Act.
\nTherefore, it is submitted that the appeal preferred by the appellant
\n  accused be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
4.3.\tLd.\n<\/p>\n
APP Mr. Bhatt further submitted that in this case because of the
\ninjury sustained by the deceased  ultimately he succumbed to the
\ninjury. There was no reason whatsoever for the Ld. Trial Judge to
\naward extremely lenient sentence of imprisonment for the period of 5
\nyears so far as the  offence punishable under section 326 of the IPC
\nis concerned. That, therefore, the Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2006
\npreferred by the State for the enhancement of sentence be allowed and
\nthe accused be appropriately sentenced for the  offence punishable
\nunder section 326 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tConsidering
\nthe record of the case, it clearly transpires that in connection with
\nthis offence  the FIR was lodged by the deceased before the police.
\nConsidering the FIR exh. 78, it is clearly mentioned that the accused
\ninflicted knife blow on the left hand side stomach of the deceased.
\nConsidering the deposition of I O Mr. Pranami, exh. 77, he deposed
\nthat while the deceased was in hospital, his complaint  was taken and
\nin the complaint exh. 78 whatever was stated by the deceased was
\nnoted down. It further transpires that the FIR was registered on
\n7\/9\/1995 and on the next day  dated 8\/9\/1995 the I O  recorded
\nfurther statement of the deceased wherein the deceased stated about
\nthe motive part of the incident that the accused was under impression
\nthat he [deceased] had illicit relations with wife of the accused
\nnamed Ramila and that though the accused has given divorce to his
\nwife Ramila, the accused suspected that the deceased was to marry his
\nex-wife Ramila. By keeping such suspicion in mind, the accused
\ninflicted knife blow. Thus, the further statement exh. 80 can be said
\nto be a dying declaration of the deceased before the police.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tHowever,
\nconsidering the oral evidence on record, it transpires that witnesses
\nNatvarlal Hiralal [ P W 2], Ranabhai Kalidas [ P W 3], Sureshkumar
\nMangaji Thakore [ P W 4] and Sureshkumar Babulal Nai [ P W 13] in
\ntheir depositions stated that upon hearing noise, they immediately
\nrushed where the deceased was lying and when they asked as to what
\nhad happened, deceased Somabhai stated to these witnesses that he
\n[the deceased] was assaulted by the accused. Considering the
\ncross-examination of these witnesses made on behalf of the defence,
\nnothing emerges on record which would make their depositions
\ndoubtful. Under such circumstances, what the deceased stated before
\nthose 4 witnesses, becomes oral dying declaration of the deceased and
\nconsidering the oral dying declaration, it clearly transpires that
\nthe deceased categorically stated that he was assaulted by the
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tThe
\nprosecution examined Executive Magistrate Mr. Vankar [ P W 6] at exh.
\n45 and according to his deposition, on 7\/9\/1995 at about 10.00 p m
\nhe received Yadi from P.S.O.  Deesa to the effect that the dying
\ndeclaration of deceased Somabhai was required to be recorded. That,
\ntherefore, at about 10-13 p m  he reached  the Civil Hospital, Deesa.
\nHe further stated that soon after arriving at the hospital, he met
\nMedical Officer Dr. Bhati and inquired about the physical and mental
\ncondition of the deceased and thereupon Dr. Bhati stated that the
\ndeceased was fully conscious.  Executive Magistrate Mr. Vankar
\nthereafter recorded the dying declaration of the deceased which is
\nproduced at exh. 47. Considering the dying declaration exh. 47, the
\ndeceased stated that on 7\/9\/1995 at about 9.30 p m, after closing his
\nshop when the deceased was going towards his home, at that time near
\nhis shop, he was assaulted by the accused and that the accused
\ninflicted one knife blow on the left hand side of his stomach. Upon
\ninquiry made by the Executive Magistrate as to why the accused
\ninflicted knife blow on his body, the deceased stated that the
\naccused suspected that he [deceased] had illicit relations with the
\nwife of the accused and, therefore, because of such suspicion, he was
\nassaulted by the accused. Considering the dying declaration exh. 47,
\nbelow it there is a clear endorsement made by the Medical Officer
\nthat during the time when the dying declaration was recorded, the
\npatient was fully conscious. However, it is true that in para. 13 of
\nhis cross-examination  Executive Magistrate Mr. Vankar stated that he
\ndid not obtain any endorsement of any doctor regarding mental
\ncondition of the deceased. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Kapadia
\nfor the appellant accused submitted that the dying declaration exh.
\n47 cannot be relied upon as there is no evidence whatsoever to come
\nto the conclusion that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to
\ngive dying declaration. However, in this respect, what Executive
\nMagistrate Mr. Vankar stated in his cross-examination is that he did
\nnot inquire about the mental condition of the deceased. However,
\nconsidering his examination-in-chief, he stated that he inquired to
\nthe Medical Officer as to whether the deceased was conscious or not
\nand thereupon  Medical Officer stated that the deceased was fully
\nconscious. In his cross-examination  Executive Magistrate Mr. Vankar
\nnowhere admitted that he even did not inquire to the Medical Officer
\nas to whether the deceased was conscious or unconscious, before
\nmeeting the deceased. Mr. Vankar categorically stated that he made
\ninquiry about this aspect of the matter and the Medical Officer
\nreplies that the deceased was fully conscious.  In this respect,
\nconsidering the deposition of Dr. Bhati [ P W 10], he stated that the
\ndeceased  was brought to his hospital at about 9.30 p m on 7\/9\/1995
\nand that the deceased had sustained one injury on the left hand side
\nof his stomach. He administered initial treatment. He stated that
\nwhen the deceased was under treatment,  at about 10-00 p m he
\nreceived police Yadi. He further stated that the injury could be
\ncaused by knife. Considering his entire deposition, it nowhere
\ntranspires that when the deceased was brought to his hospital and
\neven during the period he was under his treatment, the deceased was
\nunconscious.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tUnder
\nsuch circumstances, the genuineness of the dying declaration recorded
\nby the Executive Magistrate Mr. Vankar cannot be doubted. It may be
\nnoted that the deceased succumbed to the injury on 16\/9\/1995.  The
\nExecutive Magistrate Mr. Vankar recorded the dying declaration  of
\nthe deceased on 7\/9\/1995. Thus, here is not a case wherein the
\ndeceased succumbed to the injury soon after sustaining the injury,
\nbut he survived practically for the period of 9 days after sustaining
\nthe injury and as stated above, there is nothing on record to come to
\nthe conclusion that  immediately after sustaining the injury or
\nduring the time he was under treatment, he was unconscious. On the
\ncontrary, considering the deposition of witness Sureshkumar Nai [ P W
\n13], he stated that the deceased was his uncle and as soon as he came
\nto know that the deceased had sustained injury and was under
\ntreatment in the hospital, he went to the hospital and met the
\ndeceased. As stated earlier in this judgment, upon inquiry, the
\ndeceased told him that he was assaulted by the accused. Considering
\nthe cross-examination made on behalf of the defence of this witness
\nSureshkumar Nai, he categorically stated that when he went to the
\nhospital, at that time near the deceased  there were Executive
\nMagistrate, Medical Officer and other persons. Under such
\ncircumstances, there is nothing on record that the deceased was not
\nin fit state of mind to give dying declaration. On the contrary, the
\nprosecution proved by adducing positive evidence that at the time
\nwhen the Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration  of the
\ndeceased, the deceased was conscious and was in fit state of mind to
\ngive dying declaration.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tConsidering
\nthe medical case papers of the deceased, it clearly transpires that
\non 7\/9\/1995  general condition of the deceased was fair. As per the
\nprosecution case, the FIR which was lodged by the deceased was lodged
\n on 7\/9\/1995 and on the same day, the deceased narrated the incident
\nbefore 4 witnesses as well as Executive Magistrate recorded his dying
\ndeclaration. Thus, the medical case papers support the case of the
\nprosecution that the deceased was conscious and his physical
\ncondition was fair. It is true that both the panchas of discovery
\npanchnama exh. 82 turned hostile.  However, in this connection,
\nconsidering the deposition of I O  PI Mr. Pranami [ P W 17], he
\nstated that the accused was arrested on 26\/9\/1995 and in his presence
\nand in presence of panchas, the accused showed his willingness to
\ndiscover the weapon knife. I O Mr. Pranami stated that thereupon
\npreliminary panchnama was drawn and thereafter, the accused took them
\nto the compound of the office of Executive Magistrate and discovered
\nthe knife and the same was recovered by the panchnama exh. 82. It is
\ntrue that I O Mr. Pranami in his cross-examination stated that before
\nthe accused came to be arrested, he had made attempts to find out the
\nweapon wife, but he did not succeed in his attempt. Merely because I
\nO Mr. Pranami before arrest of the accused made attempt to find out
\nthe weapon knife, thereby it cannot be said that the discovery
\npanchnama exh. 82 which was drawn on 26\/9\/1995 becomes doubtful. The
\nimportant aspect is what the accused stated before police and panch
\nabout the place of concealment of the knife. Considering the
\ndeposition of I O  PI Mr. Pranami and the panchnama exh. 82, we are
\nof the considered opinion that the discovery of the knife at the
\ninstance of the accused in accordance with section 27 of the Evidence
\nAct is proved.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tIn
\nthis connection, considering the serological report of the FSL exh.
\n84, it transpires  that the blood group of deceased was  B .
\nDuring the course of analysis, blood stains were found on the knife
\nby the FSL and as per the serological report, the blood stains found
\non the knife were of group  B .  Thus, the serological report
\nfurther supports the case of the prosecution that the knife which was
\ndiscovered by the accused vide panchnama  exh. 82  was  used  by  him
\n while  causing  injury  to the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tIn
\nthe impugned judgment the Ld. Trial Judge elaborately discussed the
\nevidence adduced by the prosecution and ultimately came to the
\nconclusion that though the prosecution failed to establish its charge
\nagainst the accused for the commission of offence of murder
\npunishable under section 302 of the IPC, the prosecution successfully
\nproved that the accused has committed the offence of grievous hurt
\npunishable under section 326 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tIt
\nis important to note that the prosecution did not challenge the
\nacquittal of the appellant   accused for the offence of murder
\npunishable under section 302 of the IPC. The State did not prefer any
\nappeal under section 378 of the Cr. P.C challenging the acquittal of
\nthe accused for the offence of murder. The State preferred appeal
\nunder section 377 of the Cr. P.C for enhancement of sentence awarded
\nby the Ld. Trial Judge for the offence punishable under section 326
\nof the IPC. Therefore,  the fact remains that the State did not
\nchallenge the acquittal of the accused for the offence of murder
\npunishable under section 302 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tSo
\nfar as the Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2006 preferred by the State
\nunder section 377 of the Cr. P.C for the enhancement of sentence is
\nconcerned, considering the impugned judgment delivered by the Ld.
\nTrial Judge, it transpires that the Ld. Trial Judge awarded the
\nsentence of RI of 5 years and fine of Rs.3,000\/- to the accused for
\nthe offence punishable under section 326 of the IPC.  While fixing
\nthe quantum of the sentence, the Ld. Trial Judge observed that the
\nimpugned judgment was delivered on 18\/4\/2006, whereas the offence had
\ntaken place much earlier in the year 1995.  He also observed that the
\naccused was very young. In that background  Ld. Trial Judge exercised
\nhis discretion in fixing the quantum of punishment.  Considering the
\nfacts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the
\ndiscretion exercised by the Ld. Trial Judge can be said to be
\narbitrary exercise of his power. Further it cannot be said that the
\nquantum of punishment fixed by the Ld. Trial Judge can be  said to be
\nunduly lenient  causing miscarriage of justice. Under such
\ncircumstances, we are of the considered opinion that while fixing the
\nquantum of punishment   the Ld. Trial Judge did not commit any
\nillegality or irregularity.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tFor
\nthe foregoing reasons, the Criminal Appeal No. 1141 of 2006 preferred
\nby the appellant   accused deserves to be dismissed.  The order of
\nconviction and sentence recorded by the Ld. Trial Judge deserves to
\nbe confirmed.   In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2006
\npreferred by the State of Gujarat under section 377 of the Cr. P.C
\nfor the enhancement of the sentence also deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tBoth
\nthese appeals stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(
\nA. L. DAVE,  J.)<\/p>\n
(
\nJ .C. UPADHYAYA, J. )<\/p>\n
*Pansala.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Parshotambhai vs State on 6 October, 2008 Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1141\/2006 2\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1141 of 2006 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1582 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nParshotambhai vs State on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parshotambhai vs State on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-25T04:45:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parshotambhai vs State on 6 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-25T04:45:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3654,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Parshotambhai vs State on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-25T04:45:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parshotambhai vs State on 6 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Parshotambhai vs State on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parshotambhai vs State on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-25T04:45:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parshotambhai vs State on 6 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-25T04:45:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008"},"wordCount":3654,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008","name":"Parshotambhai vs State on 6 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-25T04:45:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshotambhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parshotambhai vs State on 6 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=137158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137158\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}