Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chaitram Umrav ... on 29 February, 2016
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
R/CR.A/1226/2011 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1226 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
==========================================================
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 or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)
Versus
CHAITRAM UMRAV SALVI....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. H.L.JANI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.HARDIK B SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 29/02/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant - State of Gujarat Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Tue Mar 01 02:26:41 IST 2016 R/CR.A/1226/2011 JUDGMENT under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for enhancement of the sentence qua the Respondent - Original Accused No.2, who has been convicted vide judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 275 of 1996 by the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City dated 26.2.2010 recording the conviction for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code imposing the sentence as stated in detail in the impugned judgment and order. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows.
2. On 3.8.1995, the minor daughter of the complainant is said to have been kidnapped and initially the inquiry was made and thereafter the complaint was lodged being FIR No. 34/1995 with Sabarmati Railway Police Station for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.
3. After the investigation was made, the charge sheet came to be filed, and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.
4. The learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial and after the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Judge also recorded the further statement of the Accused under Section 313 of the Code Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Tue Mar 01 02:26:41 IST 2016 R/CR.A/1226/2011 JUDGMENT of Criminal Procedure.
5. After hearing the learned APP as well as learned Advocate for the defence, the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad recorded the conviction as stated herein above.
6. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed in the present Appeal by the Appellant - State of Gujarat for enhancement of sentence.
7. Heard learned APP Shri H.L.Jani for the Appellant - State of Gujarat and learned Advocate Shri Hardik B. Shah for the Respondent - Original Accused No.2.
8. Learned APP Shri H.L.Jani as well as learned Advocate Shri Hardik B. Shah have referred to the testimony of the witnesses including the victim as well as the I.O. and though the victim is minor, it is evident that there was no charge for the offence under Section 376. Further, the conviction has been recorded for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and the Respondent
- Original Accused No.2 is said to have served the sentence imposed by the impugned judgment and order.
9. Therefore, having regard to the background of the facts and the manner in which the incident has occurred as well as the testimony of the victim as well as the I.O. as referred to by both the sides, the Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Tue Mar 01 02:26:41 IST 2016 R/CR.A/1226/2011 JUDGMENT entertainment of the present Appeal is not justified. Therefore, without any elaboration, as the sentence has been served as imposed, the present Appeal preferred by the Appellant - State of Gujarat for enhancement of sentence cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) JNW Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Tue Mar 01 02:26:41 IST 2016