Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Rameshbhai vs State on 17 July, 2012

Author: Ravi R.Tripathi

Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi, Paresh Upadhyay

  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/8041/2012	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8041 of 2012
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 756 of 2012
 

 
=========================================================

 

RAMESHBHAI
GORDHANBHAI VASAVA - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
HARDIK B SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR HK PATEL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 17/07/2012 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER 

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)

1. The present application is filed by the applicant-appellant-original accused seeking suspension of sentence pending the appeal.

2. Having heard the learned Advocate Mr.H.B.Shah for the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for grant of prayer of suspending the sentence.

3. Learned Advocate for the applicant vehemently submitted that reliance placed by the learned Judge on the evidence of Lakhiben Maganbhai Vasava-P.W. No.5-Exh.22 is not proper. He submitted that the age of P.W. No.5 was 70 years and she had cataract in her eyes and there was no light at the time of the incident, which the learned alleges to have taken place at 08.00 pm, whereas the witness has deposed the incident to have taken place at 06.00 pm.

4. Prima facie, this Court is not able to accept the submission made by the learned Advocate for the applicant that grand-mother has falsely implicated her grand-son in murder of her son, who is the father of the convict. This Court is prima facie of the opinion that the learned Judge has not committed an error in relying on the evidence of P.W.5.

5. No case is made out for grant of prayer of suspension of sentence. The application is rejected.

(Ravi R.Tripathi, J.) (Paresh Upadhyay, J.) *Shitole     Top