{"id":141083,"date":"2008-08-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-14T23:45:38","modified_gmt":"2018-03-14T18:15:38","slug":"punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Punjabhai vs The on 1 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Punjabhai vs The on 1 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Z.K.Saiyed,&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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/879\/2000\t 16\/ 16\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. 879 of 2000\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n============================================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\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\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=====================================================\n \n\nPUNJABHAI\nKARABHAI - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n===================================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMS SADHANA SAGAR for\nAppellant(s) : 1,MR G RAMAKRISHNAN for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR MUKESH\nPATEL Ld. APP for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=====================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 01\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED)<\/p>\n
1.\tThe
\npresent appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and
\norder of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions
\nJudge, Porbandar in Sessions Case No. 19\/1999 for the offence
\npunishable under sec. 302,  324 and 504  of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\npresent appellant ?  ori. Accused in Sessions Case No. 19\/1999 was
\ncharged and tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamnagar for
\nthe offence punishable under sec. 302,  324 and 504 of Indian Penal
\nCode ( for short ?SIPC??.)<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nfacts of the prosecution case is that the complainant Nathiben
\nKarabhai, on the day of incident, at about 12.30 noon heard abuses
\nfrom the house of Mana Rama and there were shouts ?Ssave save??.
\nShe immediately went there and saw that there was knife in the hands
\nof Punja  Kara, father-in-law of Manabhai’s daughter. He was telling
\nthat ?Swhy have you brought my son’s daughter Rekha to your place ???
\nHe gave a knife blow on the chest of Mana Rama and no sooner he tried
\nto give another blow than Nathiben caught hold of him, so there was
\nknife injuries on two fingers after Nathiben’s left hand thumb and
\nthe first finger after her right hand thumb. Thereafter, Kana Mana
\nson of Mana Rama came with Jivtiben and her sister Meenaben.  At that
\ntime, Punja Kara ran away by leaving his cap and people had gathered
\nthere from surroundings. Mana Rama had falled down and was moaning.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAt
\nthe end of the trial, the appellant accused was found guilty for the
\noffence of murder of Mana Rama punishable under sec. 302, 323 and 504
\nof IPC. He was, therefore, convicted vide impugned judgment and order
\ndated 11.8.2000 and sentenced to imprisonment of life for the offence
\nunder sec. 302 of IPC and fine of Rs. 1000\/-, in defualt, 2 years
\nimprisonment and for the offence under sec. 504 of IPC six months S\/I
\nand under sec. 324 of IPC 9 months S\/I. All the sentences to run
\nconcurrently.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tBeing
\naggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
\nsentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under sec.
\n374 of CrPC.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\nfacts of the prosecution case is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThat
\nNathiben Karabhai Kuchhadiya, by caste Mer, was staying with her
\nparents at Near Bokhira Panchayat, Sajaniya Dela, Taluka Udhyognagar,
\nPorbandar. Her father was running Tea Hotel and Mer Mana Rama
\nKahegiya was staying with his family in her neighbourhood. His elder
\ndaughter  Bhavna was  married with one Balu, son of Punja Kara of
\nvillage Adityana  in the year 1996 and she has one daughter also.
\nBhavna was displeased for last 8 months, yet, her father-in-law
\nPunjabhai and his relative took Bhavna by assuring for not beating
\nbefore one month of the incident.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThat,
\non 27.12.1998, Bhavnaben’s parents viz. Mana Rama and Jivtiben had
\ngone to the place of Bhavnaben at  village Adityana and returned with
\nBhavnaben’s daughter Rekha at their place at about 5.30 O’clock in
\nthe evening at village Bokhira.  On 21.12.1998, Nathiben Karabhai was
\ntaking lunch at about 12.30 noon, at that time, abuses were heard
\nfrom the house of Mana Rama who was staying near her and there were
\nshouts ?Ssave save??, so she immediately went there and saw that
\nthere was a knife in the hands of Punja Kara, father-in-law of
\nManabhai’s daughter and Punjabhai was telling that ?Swhy have they
\nbrought her son’s daughter Rekha to their place ??? He gave a knife
\nblow on the chest of Manabhai Ramabhai and no sooner  he tried to
\ngive another blow, so Nathiben caught hold of  him and Nathiben has
\nalso received knife injuries on her two fingers.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tMana
\nRama’s son Kana Rama came with Jivatiben and Minaben. At that time,
\nPunja Kara ran away by leaving his cap. So,  people had gathered from
\nsurroundings and Mana Rama had fallen down and was moaning.
\nThereafter, Minaben and Jivtiben’s son Kana and Karsan Rama and
\nothers took Mana Rama to Government Hospital in rickshaw and Nathiben
\nalso came to Government hospital. Thereafter, it was came to know
\nthat Mana  Rama had died and she was also given treatment and got
\ndischarged.  Therefore, PSI of Udhyognagar Police Station, Porbandar
\nhas registered complaint vide CR No. I-0089 of 1998 for commission of
\nthe offence punishable under sec. 302, 324 and 504 of IPC. Pursuant
\nto the registration of complaint, investigation was
\n                   put into motion  and inquest panchnama of dead
\nbody was also drawn in the presence of panch witnesses and dead body
\nwas sent for autopsy. Panchanama of scene of offence was also drawn
\nand statements of the witnesses were recorded. Injury certificate of
\nthe complainant was obtained. Blood sample was obtained by Medical
\nofficer. Thereafter clothes of deceased was recovered and sealed
\nunder panchnama. Then, accused ?  present appellant Punja Kara  was
\narrested. Blood sample of the appellant was taken and it was
\nrecovered under panchanama. Then discovery panchnama of muddamal
\nknife was also drawn  and it was seized. Clothes of present appellant
\nwas also recovered. Copy of the Notification of the District
\nMagistrate, Porbandar was tagged with the investigation. Thereafter,
\nmuddamal was sent to the FSL for scientific analysis. Map of the
\nplace of incident was prepared and then on completion of
\ninvestigation against the accused, Investigating Officer has filed
\ncharge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
\nPorbandar  under sec. 302, 324 and 504 of IPC for the commission of
\nthe said offence. Since the offence punishable under sec. 302 of IPC,
\nis exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge, the learned
\nMagistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions,
\nPorbandar.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe
\nLearned Sessions Judge has framed the charge against the appellant
\nand the appellant-accused  has not pleaded guilty and claimed to be
\ntried. Therefore, trial was proceeded in the Sessions Case No.
\n19\/1999.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tDuring
\nthe course of trial, the prosecution has examined, in all, 26
\nwitnesses to prove the culpability of the accused, which are as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
Dr.\n<\/p>\n
\tKhudkhudiya Nurun Amin Ex. 6<\/p>\n
Dr.\n<\/p>\n
\tBharatkumar Nathubhai Ex.9<\/p>\n
Nathiben
\n\tKarabhai Ex. 14<\/p>\n
Jivatiben
\n\tManabhai Ex. 16<\/p>\n
Kana
\n\tManabhai  Ex. 17<\/p>\n
Karsan
\n\tRambhai Ex. 20<\/p>\n
Rambhai
\n\t Jagmal Ex. 18<\/p>\n
Minaben
\n\tKarsanbhai Ex. 21<\/p>\n
Hiraben
\n\tKarsanbhai Ex. 22<\/p>\n
Sukabhai
\n\tVejabhai Ex. 24<\/p>\n
Jiviben
\n\tKarabhai Ex. 23<\/p>\n
Arjan
\n\tPunjabhai Ex. 26<\/p>\n
Lalji
\n\tVasram Ex. 27<\/p>\n
Mohan
\n\tJadav Ex. 28<\/p>\n
Keshu
\n\tBhikha Ex. 30<\/p>\n
Arjan
\n\tSukabhai Ex. 32<\/p>\n
Devabhai
\n\tVeja Ex. 33<\/p>\n
Devashi
\n\tLilabhai Ex. 34<\/p>\n
Jaysukh
\n\tGigabhai Ex. 35<\/p>\n
Sukhdevsinh
\n\tHanubha Zala Ex. 37<\/p>\n
Jayantilal
\n\tMeghjibhai Ex. 42<\/p>\n
Ashok
\n\tLabhshankar Ex. 46<\/p>\n
Devshi
\n\tJivabhi Ex. 45<\/p>\n
Vedprakash
\n\tRaghuvirsinh Ex. 48<\/p>\n
Rasiklal
\n\tBalubhai Ex. 54<\/p>\n
Rajendrasinh
\n\tHamirji Jadeja Ex. 56<\/p>\n
12.\tThe
\nprosecution has also produced documents just to prove the charge
\nlevelled against the accused-appellant, which are as under:\n<\/p>\n
Complaint
\n\tEx. 15<\/p>\n
Yadi
\n\tof Udhyognagar Police Station Ex. 49<\/p>\n
Injury
\n\tCertificate of Nathiben Kara<\/p>\n
Yadi
\n\tof inquest panchnama of dead-body Ex. 57<\/p>\n
Inquest
\n\tpanchnama of dead-body of Mana Rama Ex.25<\/p>\n
Form
\n\tof death<\/p>\n
Yadi
\n\tfor PM <\/p>\n
Yadi
\n\tto Medical Officer for blood sample and clothes of deceased<\/p>\n
PM
\n\tReport<\/p>\n
Panchnama
\n\tof scene of offence<\/p>\n
Yadi
\n\tfor blood sample and clothes Ex. 52<\/p>\n
Panchnama
\n\tof blood sample and clothes Ex. 51<\/p>\n
Yadi
\n\tfor blood sample of Nathiben Kara<\/p>\n
Yadi
\n\tof blood sample  of Nathiben Kara Ex. 53<\/p>\n
Panchnama
\n\tof blood sample of Nathiben<\/p>\n
Yadi
\n\tby PI LCB to PSO for taking over papers Ex. 38<\/p>\n
Arrest
\n\tpanchnama of Punja Kara<\/p>\n
Arrest
\n\tMemo of Punja Kara Ex. 39<\/p>\n
Arrest
\n\treport of Punja Kara under sec. 58<\/p>\n
Entry
\n\tin police station diary for arrest of   accused<\/p>\n
Yadi
\n\tto Medical Officer for collection of blood sample of Punja Kara<\/p>\n
Yadi
\n\tfor blood collection of Punja Kara <\/p>\n
Panchnama
\n\tof blood of Punja Kara  Ex. 47<\/p>\n
Panchnama
\n\tof knife <\/p>\n
Panchnama
\n\tof the clothes put on by accused<\/p>\n
Copy
\n\tof Notification<\/p>\n
Mudammal
\n\tsent to FSL Ex.62<\/p>\n
Receipt
\n\tfrom FSL <\/p>\n
Forwarding
\n\tLetter Ex. 64<\/p>\n
FSL
\n\tReport Ex. 65<\/p>\n
Report
\n\tof Serology Ex. 66<\/p>\n
Report
\n\tof FSL Ex. 67<\/p>\n
Yadi
\n\tfor map of scene of offence Ex. 43<\/p>\n
Map
\n\tof scene of offence Ex. 44<\/p>\n
13.\tAfter
\nrecording of the evidence of the witnesses, the trial court explained
\nthe accused the circumstances which were appearing against him and
\nthe statement of the accused was recorded under sec. 313 of CrPC. In
\nhis statement, he denied the case in toto. He made a statement that
\nhe has been wrongly booked in a false case. He neither led any
\nevidence nor examined any witnesses in support of his defence. On
\nappreciation, evaluation and scrutiny of evidence on record, the
\ntrial court held that the appellant has committed the offence of
\nmurder punishable under sec. 302, 324 and 504 of IPC. So, he was
\nconvicted and sentenced to under go life imprisonment for the offence
\n under sec.  302 of IPC and fine of Rs. 1000\/-, in default, 2 years
\nimprisonment and under sec. 504 of IPC six months S\/I and under sec.
\n324 of IPC 9 months S\/I.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tMs.\n<\/p>\n
Sadhna Sagar learned Advocate appointed  by the Legal Aid committee,
\nfor the appellant, has contended that complainant is a chance
\nwitness. She has no personal knowledge and from the oral evidence of
\nthe complainant, it is on record that she is not a eye witness. She
\nhas also contended that only single blow was found on the body of the
\ndeceased, therefore,  there was no intention to kill the deceased. It
\nis  also contended by learned advocate Ms. Sagar that there was some
\noral exchange of dialogue with the deceased and accused, therefore,
\ndue to sudden provocation from the deceased, accused got excited and
\nthat offence took place. So, Ms. Sagar has argued that this is simply
\na case of single blow and, there was a sudden provocation also. So,
\nthe judgment and order of the trial court is erroneous and against
\nthe provisions of law. It is also contended that learned trial judge
\nhas not considered the said issue and present appellant is wrongly
\nconvicted for the offence of murder. She has contended that this is
\nnot a case of murder but it can be considered to be a case under sec.
\n304 Part-II of IPC. She has also contended that the accused has not
\ninflicted the knife blow on the deceased with an intention to kill
\nhim. So, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled
\nagainst the accused and also argued that from the oral evidence of
\nsingle eye witness, there are so many contradictions, then trial
\ncourt cannot consider such type of evidence and cannot use it for
\nconviction. She alternatively submitted that all the evidence of
\nprosecution is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable
\neither under  Part-I or Part-II of sec. 304 of IPC.  She has also
\ncontended that accused is in jail since more than 10 years and
\ntherefore, conviction may be altered from sec. 302 of IPC to either
\nPart-I or Part-II of sec. 304 of IPC and sentence already  undergone
\nby the accused may be treated as substantive sentence and accordingly
\naccused may be set at liberty forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tLearned
\nAPP Mr. Mukesh Patel appearing for respondent ?  State has supported
\nthe impugned judgment and order through out. According to him, there
\nis no infirmity in the prosecution case. It is contended that at the
\nevent of the incident, present appellant was armed with knife, a
\ndeadly weapon and possession of knife with the appellant, has a
\nreason to say that there was an intention of the appellant to kill
\nthe deceased. He has also contended that from the oral evidence of
\nthe complainant, it is established that on the vital part of the body
\nof the deceased, with full force the blow  of knife was inflicted
\nand he has also tried to inflict second blow to the deceased, but
\nthat blow was stopped by the present complainant and she has received
\ninjuries on her two fingers. He has also contended that complainant
\nis a neighbour. She is not a relative and she cannot be cited as a
\nchance witness or interested witness. He has also contended that from
\nthe complaint and oral evidence of the complainant, when she heard
\nsome shouts from the place of scene of offence, she rushed there and
\nin her presence one blow of knife was inflicted by the appellant on
\nthe deceased. So, the presence of the complainant is natural one. It
\nis also contended that from discovery panchnama, panchnama of place
\nof offence and oral evidence of the witnesses also, the prosecution
\nhas produced sufficient circumstantial evidence in support of its
\ncase. He has contended that in view of the well reasoned judgment of
\nthe trial court, there is no substance in the present appeal and it
\nis required to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tWe
\nhave considered the submissions made by learned advocate Ms. Sagar
\nfor appellant and learned APP Mr. Mukesh Patel for the respondent-
\nState. We have perused the impugned judgment and order and set of
\nevidence supplied by him. During the course of submissions, we have
\nalso undertaken a complete and comprehensive appreciation of vital
\nfeatures  of this case and the entire evidence on record, which is
\nread by learned advocates for the parties with reference to broad
\nreasonable probabilities of the case.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tIt
\nis not a disputed issue that deceased  Mana Rama died homicidal
\ndeath. The prosecution  has produced evidence of eye witness
\ncomplainant, oral evidence of medical expert as well as other
\nwitnesses and also the evidence of panch witnesses and Investigating
\nOfficer. PW-1 & 2 at Ex. 6 & 9, both are doctors and autopsy
\nwas carried out by them and in detail the injuries were prescribed by
\nthe expert witnesses and injury of the complainant is also produced
\non record. We have gone through the injury of eye witness and from
\nthe oral evidence, it is  on record that when she heard shouts ?Ssave
\nsave?? from the place of offence, she immediately rushed to the
\nplace of offence and in her presence stab injury of knife was
\ninflicted on the vital part of the body of deceased and  has
\nalsotried to inflict second blow but that blow was stopped by the
\ncomplainant and due to that, she had receive injuries on her two
\nfingers. So,   her presence was natural and she cannot be cited as a
\nchance witness. There is no enmity with the present appellant, so
\nthere is no case to say that complainant has wrongly booked the
\npresent appellant in a case of murder. We have compared contents of
\ndiscovery panchnama, knife was recovered at the instance of the
\nappellant. Clothes of the appellant were also recovered. The
\ncircumstantial evidence which are produced by the witness, we have
\ncompared that evidence with the documentary evidence  of autopsy.
\nDoctor has fairly established that the injury of the deceased was
\nsufficient in ordinary course of natural to cause death. The inquest
\npanchnama also corroborative piece of evidence with autopsy and oral
\nevidence of the witness. The trial court has established homicidal
\ndeath of the deceased and rightly recorded the said finding. In this
\nconnection, we have scrutinized  the evidence of PW-1 & 2. From
\nthe evidence of PW-1, it is on record that accused ?  present
\nappellant was aggressive in such a manner because his grand daughter
\nwas brought by deceased to his house and that was against his will,
\nso the appellant was abusing by using such type of words to the
\ndeceased and when he inflicted one blow on deceased and when
\ncomplainant has stopped him, she has received injuries. We have also
\nscrutinized the injury of the deceased from the evidence of doctors
\nand P.M. Note.  It is on record that injury was inflicted on the
\nvital part of the body of deceased which was resulted into fatal.
\nFrom the cross-examination of the eye witness, we have not found any
\ncontradictory version from the evidence of medical expert. We have
\nalso not found any material contradiction from the oral as well as
\ndocumentary evidence of the prosecution. We have testified whole
\nevidence of eye witness as well as panch witnesses and panchnama of
\ndiscovery. We have found that contents of discovery panchnama, weapon
\nis also proved. We have perused the provisions of sec. 27 of the
\nEvidence Act and, we are of the opinion that ingredients of
\nprovisions of sec. 27 of the Evidence Act is followed by the oral
\nversion of the witness.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tWe
\nhave scrutinized the oral evidence of the Investigating Officer and
\nwe have not found any illegality  or irregularity in the
\ninvestigation.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tIt
\nis settled principle that the evidence of the eye witness if found to
\nbe trustworthy, reliable and acceptable without any doubt, then, it
\ncannot be thrown away simply due to neighbourhood of the witness
\n(complainant). It appears from the oral version of the eye witness-
\ncomplainant as well as evidence of doctors, that there is evidence to
\nthe effect that the assault made by the appellant ?  accused as made
\nwith an intention and preparation. The conduct of the accused ?
\nappellant is also required to be considered and from the evidence, it
\nappears that prior to the incident, he was with knowledge and
\nintention and due to this reason, he carried the knife with him.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tIn
\nthe present case, we have discussed the oral evidence of eye witness
\nas well as maker of autopsy. It appears that the injury of the
\ndeceased was inflicted on the vital part of the body with a intention
\nto kill him and due to the blow of sharp edged weapon inflicted by
\nthe appellant, injury of the deceased was found sufficient in
\nordinary course of natural to cause death. The same could be said to
\nhave been intended that the only injury which would be regarded as
\nintentionally was  sufficient to resulting directly from the blow and
\nappellant could be held guilty of offence punishable under sec. 302
\nof IPC, looking to the cause of death, facts and circumstances of the
\ncase. However, prosecution has bring the case under the provisions of
\nsec. 302 of IPC and it is required to be considered that it is a case
\nof murder and cannot fall under the provisions of sec. 304 Part-II.
\nWe have also found that appellant intended to inflict  that
\nparticular blow  which the doctor opined to be fatal is properly
\nobserved. We have also found that there was a knowledge of appellant
\nby inflicting that injury he was likely to cause death and when
\nknowledge and intention was present, then, ingredients of murder can
\nbe established.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tSeen
\nin the above context, the impugned judgment and order dated 11.8.2000
\npassed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in
\nSessions Case No. 19\/1999,  convicting and sentencing the accused ?
\npresent appellant for the commission of the offence under sec. 302,
\n324 and 504 of IPC, deserves to be confirmed. We found no substance
\nin the present appeal and the same is required to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tIn
\nthe result, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order
\ndated 11.8.2000 passed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge,
\nPorbandar in Sessions Case No. 19\/1999, convicting and sentencing the
\naccused ?  present appellant for the commission of the offence under
\nsec. 302, 324 and 504 of IPC is confirmed. Mudammal to be disposed of
\nin terms of the judgment and order of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
(A.M.KAPADIA,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n
SAIYED, J.)<\/p>\n
mandora\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Punjabhai vs The on 1 August, 2008 Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/879\/2000 16\/ 16 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 879 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ============================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/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-141083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPunjabhai vs The on 1 August, 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\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Punjabhai vs The on 1 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-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=\"2008-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-14T18:15:38+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Punjabhai vs The on 1 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-14T18:15:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3151,\"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\\\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Punjabhai vs The on 1 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-14T18:15:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Punjabhai vs The on 1 August, 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":"Punjabhai vs The on 1 August, 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\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Punjabhai vs The on 1 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-14T18:15:38+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Punjabhai vs The on 1 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-14T18:15:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008"},"wordCount":3151,"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\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008","name":"Punjabhai vs The on 1 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-14T18:15:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjabhai-vs-the-on-1-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Punjabhai vs The on 1 August, 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\/141083","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=141083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141083\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}