Gujarat High Court
Prakash Alias Raghu Alias Vitthalbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat ... on 12 March, 2015
Author: S.G.Shah
Bench: S.G.Shah
R/CR.A/1033/2007 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1033 of 2007
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1034 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
PRAKASH ALIAS RAGHU ALIAS VITTHALBHAI BAROT....Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO'....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PB KHAMBHOLJA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KL PANDYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Date : 12/03/2015
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Both these appeals are arising out of the common impugned judgment and order dated 2.5.2007 by Presiding Officer & Addl.Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case no.133 of 2006. Both the appellants are Page 1 of 5 R/CR.A/1033/2007 JUDGMENT convicted u/ss.395, 397 r/w.Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. One Basir @ Bolo Sultan Mevati being accused no.1 has filed Criminal Appeal no.1034 of 2007, whereas accused no.2 - Prakash @ Raghu @ Gatto Vithalbhai Barot has filed Criminal Appeal no.1033 of 2007.
2. The sessions case has been initiated pursuant to Vijapur police station I - C.R.no.20 of 2005 registered on 19.01.2005 for which chargesheet no.122 of 2006 was filed on 6.8.2006 and on committal of the case, the accused were tried and convicted, as aforesaid.
3. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is to the effect that on 18.1.2005 when complainant Rajeshkumar Prahladbhai Nayak was given a lift in a car near Village Vijapur from Petrol Pump and after reaching Pilvai on Mehsana road, occupants of the car have looted him by showing a knife, which was kept on his neck with threats to kill him if he resists or opposes and took away all his valuables and then dropped him at about 2 k.m. from Vihar cross-roads, on highway.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 private witnesses and three police officers and produced 9 documents to prove the case against the appellants. If we peruse the impugned judgment, the trial Court has discussed the entire evidence in detail and appreciated it properly for coming to the conclusion that appellants have committed the offences punishable u/ss.395, 397 r/w.Section 114 of the IPC, but it is also confirmed by the Sessions Court that prosecution has failed to prove the offence u/s.135 of the B.P. Act.
5. However, at present, considering the factual position, which emerges from the jail report dated 10.1.2015, it becomes clear that appellants have been arrested in the month of March, 2006 and they were not released on bail either during the trial or pending these appeals, which Page 2 of 5 R/CR.A/1033/2007 JUDGMENT is filed in the year 2007, the appellants have in fact, undergone imprisonment for more than the period for which they are convicted by the impugned judgment, since the total period of imprisonment as on date for both the appellants is now more than 9 years.
6. However, there is no fault on the part of the administration or even the judicial proceedings, because the jail record also confirms that the accused are convicted in other cases also and several other cases are pending against them.
7. So far as accused no.1 - Basir @ Bolo Sultan Mevati is concerned, he has been convicted in all, three different cases, all u/s.394 of the IPC and in Sessions Case no.101 of 2006, he is convicted with life imprisonment. Such imprisonment is yet to be undergone by him.
8. So far as accused no.2 - Prakash @ Raghu @ Gatto Vithalbhai Barot is concerned, he has been convicted in five different cases, all u/ss.394 and 395 of the IPC, and in Sessions Case no.101 of 2006, he is convicted with life imprisonment by the Sessions Court at Gandhinagar, whereas as many as 10 other cases are pending against him, the details of which are as under:-
Sr. No. Police Station FIR No.
1 D.C.B. Police Station I-65 of 2005
2 Makarpura Police Station I-369 of 2005
3 Vijapur Police Station I-142 of 2005
4 Kalol Police Station I-229 of 2005
5 Kalol Police Station I-85 of 2005
6 Anand Town Police Station I-253 of 2005
7 Anand Town Police Station I-266 of 2005
8 Vidhyanagar Police Station I-113 of 2005
9 Himmatnagar Police Station I-263 of 2005
Page 3 of 5
R/CR.A/1033/2007 JUDGMENT
10 Himmatnagar Police Station I-244 of 2005
9. All the offences are u/ss.379, 394 and 399 etc. of the IPC and atleast in two cases, he is also facing charges under the Arms Act and in some of these cases, he is not released on bail and, therefore, so far as his custody is concerned, there is no illegality or irregularity.
10. In view of such factual position, though learned advocate for the appellants has argued on merits submitting that if there is an order of acquittal in favour of the appellants, then, this conviction may not come in his way in arguing the appeals or other cases where evidence is yet to be recorded. However, considering the same factual details, when the appellants have already undergone the imprisonment awarded by the impugned judgment, then, practically, there is no reason to discuss the factual details and to verify as to whether appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal, more particularly, when they are convicted with life imprisonment in another case in the year 2011. In addition to conviction in the present case as well as life imprisonment as aforesaid, accused no.1 is also convicted for 7 years in Sessions Case no.147 of 2008 whereas accused no.2 has been convicted for 10 years in Sessions Case no.166 of 2006. Whereas, as many as 10 cases are pending against accused no.2, which are listed herein above and four cases are pending against accused no.1, which are as under;
Sr. No. Police Station FIR No.
1 Langhnaj Police Station I-24 of 2005
2 Ganbhoi Police Station I-76 of 2005
3 Rajkot Police Station I-236 of 2005
4 Ravpura Police Station I-87 of 2014
11. Therefore, these Criminal Appeals are required to be disposed of on this count itself since no practical purpose is going to be served except Page 4 of 5 R/CR.A/1033/2007 JUDGMENT a reason for the accused to argue in other cases that he is not convicted in this case. For the purpose, it may be recorded that these appeals are disposed of on technical grounds and on factual details, which is recorded herein above i.e. without entering into the merits and, therefore, it would be open for the appellants to submit so in other cases.
12. When appellants have already undergone more period of imprisonment than the imprisonment awarded as sentence by the impugned judgment and order, I do not see any reason to discuss the factual details, since on such ground itself, the Criminal Appeals have become infructuous and are disposed of accordingly.
13. Thereby, if at all appellants have undergone the sentence awarded in any other case or if they are released on bail in any other cases, the jail authorities shall release them since their sentence is completed for these cases.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) binoy Page 5 of 5