Gujarat High Court
Shyamsinh Ramnath Yadav vs State Of Gujarat on 25 April, 2013
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
SHYAMSINH RAMNATH YADAV....Appellant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) R/CR.A/1754/2010 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
1754 of 2010 With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1749 of 2010 With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1752 of 2010 TO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1753 of 2010 With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1665 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO 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 ?
NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO Criminal Appeal No. 1754 of 2010 SHYAMSINH RAMNATH YADAV Versus STATE OF GUJARAT Criminal Appeal No. 1749 of 2010 ANIL SHRIRAMADDIN YADAV Versus STATE OF GUJARAT Criminal Appeal No. 1752 of 2010 SUKHBEERSINH MEMSINH YADAV Versus STATE OF GUJARAT Criminal Appeal No. 1753 of 2010 SATPRAKASHSING @ TINU RAMESHCHANDRA DHUVARE Versus STATE OF GUJARAT Criminal Appeal No. 1665 of 2010 RAJEEV SHRIJASKARANSINH YADAV Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================================ Appearance Criminal Appeals No. 1754 of 2010, 1749 of 2010, 1752 of 2010 and 1665 of 2010:
MR GAJENDRA P BAGHEL ADVOCATE for the Appellant MR KP RAVAL APP for the Respondent Appearance Criminal Appeals No. 1753 of 2010:
MR BHAVIN S RAIYANI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant MR KP RAVAL APP for the Respondent ================================================================ CORAM:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI Date : 25/04/2013 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT 1 The appellant in each of the appeals were charged and tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2010 and by common judgment and order dated 18.8.2010 all the appellants came to be convicted and sentenced as under:
Appellant in Appeal No.1754 of 2010 Shyamsinh Ramnath Yadav - original accused No.5 was convicted for the offence under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default RI for two years for the offence under Section 399 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo RI for two years for the offence under Section 402 of the IPC respectively. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Appellant in Appeal No.1749 of 2010 Anil Shriramaddin Yadav-original accused No.1 was convicted for the commission of offence under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC as well as under Section 25(1)(1-A) and under Section 25(1)(a)(b) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, RI for two years for the offence under Section 399 of the IPC; RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo RI for two years for the offence under Section 402 of the IPC; RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo RI for one year for the offence under Section 25(1)(1-A) of the Arms Act and RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo RI for one year for the offence under Section 25(1)(b-a) of the Arms Act respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Appellant in Appeal No.1752 of 2010 Sukhbeersinh Nemsinh Yadav - original accused No.2 was convicted for the offence under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC as well as under Section 25(1)(1-A) and under Section 25(1)(a)(b) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default RI for two years for the offence under Section 399 of the IPC; RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo RI for two years for the offence under Section 402 of the IPC; RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo RI for one year for the offence under Section 25(1)(1-A) of the Arms Act and RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo RI for year for the offence under Section 25(1)(b-a) of the Arms Act respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Appellant in Appeal No.1753 of 2010 Satprakashsinh @ Tinu Rameshchandra Dhuvare - original accused No.6 was convicted for the offence under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default RI for two years and for the offence under Section 399 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo RI two years for the offence under Section 402 of the IPC. The accused was given set off and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Appellant in Appeal No.1665 of 2010 Rajeev Shrijaskaransinh Yadav-original accused No.4 was convicted under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default RI for two years for the offence under Section 399 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo RI two years for the offence under Section 402 of the IPC. The accused was given set off and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid common judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.8.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in Sessions Case No.22 of 2010, the appellants original accused have preferred the aforesaid five Criminal Appeals. Since the impugned judgment and order is common in all the aforesaid five appeals, the same are heard and decided together by this common judgment.
3 Heard learned Advocates Mr. Bhavin S. Raiyani and learned Advocate Mr. Gajendra P. Baghel for the respective appellants and Mr. K. P. Raval, learned APP, for the respondent State.
4 Learned Advocate Mr. Bhavin S. Raiyani and learned Advocate Mr. Gajendra P. Bagel, appearing for the appellants in the respective appeals, have submitted that they do not want to challenge the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Court by impugned judgment and order dated 18.8.2010, however, they prayed that the sentence and fine imposed upon the appellants are on the higher side and therefore requested to reduce the same considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
4.1 In support of their submissions, they have relied upon a decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Birbal B. Chouhan and Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., as reported in (2011) 10 SCC 776 and submitted that the facts of that case and the facts of the present case are almost comparable and, therefore, the sentence of 10 years imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to three years and also prayed to reduce the fine imposed on them by the learned Sessions Judge.
5 On the other hand, learned APP Mr. K.P. Raval, appearing for the respondent State has submitted that out of five appellants, three appellants, namely, Anil Shriramaddin Yadav- original accused No. 1, Sukhbeersinh Nemsinh Yadav-original accused No.2 and Rajeev Shrijaskaransinh Yadav original accused No.4 have found to be involved in the offence of similar nature, which were registered in the year 2009 and, therefore, the sentence imposed on them by the learned Sessions Court, may not be reduced qua those accused persons. He further submitted that, as far as the appellants, namely, Shyamsinh Ramnath Yadav-original accused No.5 and Satprakashsinh @ Tinu Rameshchandra Dhuvare-original accused No.6 are concerned, their case may be considered for reduction of sentence only after considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the facts in the case of Birbal B. Chouhan & Anr. (supra) are not comparable with the facts of the present case and, therefore the sentence and fine imposed on them by the Sessions Court be maintained.
6In the background of the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, it would be desirable to narrate certain factual aspects of the matter, which are as under:
6.1 The prosecution case is that one Shri Rajendrakumar Lallubhai Mahera, who was working as a Police Constable in the Special Operation Group at Kheda, had received a secret information that on 23.10.200, six to seven persons are about to gather at Nadiad bus stand, with an intention to loot `angadia pedhi . It was the fifth day after Diwali i.e. `Labhpancham day , and ordinarily, all such `angadia pedhi reopen because on that day they would get more cash money for transactions. The said secret information was forwarded to his superior officers, namely, Vijaysinh Juvansinh Jadeja, Police Inspector, LCB, Kheda. Pursuant thereto, PSI Jadeja along with other staff members reached near the Railway Station. Two panchas were also called at the place where the police personnel were waiting for the unknown group of persons who alleged to have the intention to loot angadia pedhi.
6.2 At about 3 O clock in the noon, six persons were found near the bus stand where the buses were kept in the depot. All the six persons were cordoned by the police personnel and all them were arrested at the place itself. Thereafter, search was made on the person of the accused persons in the presence of panchas. During the search, from the possession of accused No.1-Anil Shriramaddin Yadav, one country made pistol was found from one pocket and three cartridges were also found from the left pant pocket; from the possession of accused No.2 Sukhbeersinh Nemsinh Yadav, one country made pistol was discovered and also three cartridges were found from his another packet; from the possession of Bipendrasinh @ Lalu Shriramcharn Yadav, one country made pistol was found, who is, of course, not before this court as he is a juvenile accused and from other three accused, namely, accused No.5 Shyamsinh Ramnath Yada, accused No.6 Satprakashsing @ Tinu Rameshchandra Dhuvare and accused No.4 Rajeev Shrijaskaransinh Yadav some cash amounts and mobile phones were discovered.
6.3 On the basis of the complaint, an offence was registered, investigated and charge sheet was filed in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad, who in turn, committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad and the same came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 22 of 2010. Charge was framed against the accused persons at Exhibit No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and under Sections 25(1)(A) and 25(1)(a)(b) of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses including police personnel and panch witnesses also also produced certain documentary evidence in support of its case including the panchnama of scene of offence, FSL report etc. 6.4 The learned Sessions Court after considering the depositions of the witnesses and the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, accepted the case of the prosecution and held that the prosecution was successful in establishing its case against all the accused persons and convicted and sentenced the accused persons, as afore-stated.
7 As stated in the beginning of this judgment, I have considered the case of the appellants for reducing the sentence only as the learned Advocates appearing for the appellants do not want to challenge the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Court against each of the appellants. Keeping in mind the said aspect, I have perused the depositions of the witnesses. It is an undisputed fact that, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses, though, the appellants were arrested at the place of scene of offence, which is situated near a bus stand and a busy area of Nadia Town. It is also an admitted position that none of the police witnesses or any other witnesses have stated that which `angadia pedhi was under the target of the present appellants accused for looting. It is also an admitted position that none of the police personnel has recorded in their police diary about the name of the angadia pedhi which was to be looted by the accused persons. It is also an admitted position that the weapons, which were discovered form the appellants, were not loaded and the cartridges were found from their pant pockets. It is also not the case of the prosecution that any of the accused appellants had tried to use or shown the weapons even though they were cordoned by the police personnel or tried to flee way.
8 In the case of Birla B. Chouhan & Anr. (Supra) the facts are like that the accused were found with lethal arms like sword, dagger and betel axe in the wee hours of the day. In that context, the Hon ble Apex Court observed in the order that we have no hesitation in holding that the courts below were justified in recording an order of conviction against the appellants, however, we feel that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed upon the appellants is somewhat harsh and needs to be suitably reduced and accordingly the sentence recorded by the Trial Court as confirmed by the High Court to the extent that instead of five years the appellants shall stand sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years only on both counts only.
9 I have considered the jail record of each of the appellants and also perused the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court. Considering the overall aspects of the matter, the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the appellants is required to be accepted especially when no independent witnesses was examined by the prosecution in support of its case, though, the alleged incident took place in a thickly populated area, and that too, at 3 O clock in the noon. In my considered view, the sentence and fine imposed upon the appellants is somewhat harsh and needs to be suitably reduced. Hence, the following order is passed:
(i) the sentence of 10 years RI imposed on the appellant in Appeal No.1754 of 2010 Shyamsinh Ramnath Yadav-original Accused No.5 under the IPC is reduced to five years and the fine is reduced to the extent of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) in default to undergo RI for three months;
(ii) the sentence of 10 years RI imposed on the appellant in Appeal No.1749 of 2010 Anil Shriramaddin Yadav-original Accused No.1 under the IPC is reduced to five years and the sentence of five years imposed under the Arms Act is reduced to three years. The fine is reduced to the extent of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default to undergo RI for three months. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently;
the sentence of 10 years RI imposed on the appellant in Appeal No.1752 of 2010 Sukhbeersinh Nemsinh Yadav -original Accused No.2 under the IPC is reduced to five years and the sentence of five years imposed under the Arms Act is reduced to three years. The fine is reduced to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default to undergo RI for three months. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently;
the sentence of 10 years RI imposed on the appellant in Appeal No.1753 of 2010 Satprakashsing @ Tinu Rameshchandra Dhuvare - original Accused No.6 is reduced to five years and the fine is reduced to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default to undergo RI for three months; and
(v) the sentence of 10 years RI imposed on the appellant in Appeal No.1665 of 2010 Rajeev Shrijaskaransinh Yadav-original Accused No.4 is reduced to five years and the fine is reduced to the extent of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default to undergo RI for three months;
10 In the result, the appeals are partly allowed and accordingly the sentences imposed on the appellants by the Trail Court are modified to the aforesaid extent only.
(A.J.DESAI, J.) pnnair Page 11 of 11