IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD DISTRICT: GANDHINAGAR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2014 (Under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Rakeshkumar Manubhai Parekh, Male, Aged: Residing at: Pethapur, District : Gandhinagar. At present undergoing sentence as Convict prisoner. ... Appellant Orig.Accused-1 of Sessions Case No.120/2011. Versus State of Gujarat (Notice to be served through the Ld. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Gujarat, Sola-Ahmedabad. ... Respondent Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and order passed by 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar dated 04/07/2013 in Sessions Case No.120/2011 1
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DISTRICT: GANDHINAGAR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2014(Under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
State of Gujarat(Notice to be served through the Ld.Public Prosecutor, High Court ofGujarat, Sola-Ahmedabad. ... Respondent
Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and order passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar dated 04/07/2013 in Sessions Case No.120/2011 convicting the accused appellant for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A IPC and sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for a term of 3 years with fine of Rs.2000/- i.d SI for two months and further convicting under Section 306 of IPC and sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of
1
Rs.3000/- i.d. S.I. for three months.
TO,THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OFTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT ATSOLA-AHMEDABAD.
THE HUMBLE APPEAL OF THEAPPELLANT ABOVE NAMED :
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT :
1. The accused-appellant herein and 2 other co-
accused were tried in the Court of 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar on the charges of
having committed offences punishable U/s.498-A
and 306 IPC. Vide Judgment and order dated
04/07/2013 the Trial Court convicted the
accused-appellant herein for the offence
punishable U/s. 498-A IPC and sentencing the
appellant to undergo RI for a term of 3 years with
fine of Rs.2000/- i.d S.I. for two months and
further convicting under Section 306 of IPC and
sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 5
years with fine of Rs.3000/- i.d. S.I. for three
months
2
2. Case of the prosecution in brief can be
summarized as under :
2.1) Accused-appellant was married to deceased
Neetaben. Before four years, out of the said
wedlock, they had a daughter aged 1 ½ years
named Devana. The deceased was staying in the
joint family and the accused persons were giving
mental and physical harassment to the
deceased. It was the further the case of the
complainant that, whenever the deceased used
to visit the house of the complainant, she used to
state that her in laws were instigating the
appellant and by doing that the appellant used to
beat her. One and half months before the
incident, the deceased and the appellant started
staying separately at Indroda village in a rented
house. On 29/04/2011, because of the instigation
from her in laws, the appellant physically harass
the deceased and asked money from her, which
was paid by the complainant and memorandum
of understating was also entered into on the
same day. But then also, the harassment
continued and on 25/06/2011, the deceased
committed suicide by hanging herself at village
3
Sargasan. Based on the same, the FIR came to
be lodged at Gandhinagar Sector-7 Police Station
which was registered as C. R. No.I-220/2011 for
offences punishable U/s.498A, 306, 114 IPC.
3. Charge-sheet was filed against the accused-
appellant and other 2 co-accused for the
offences enumerated above and as Sec. 306 IPC
is exclusively triable by Sessions Court, the
Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar committed the
case to the Court of Sessions under the
provisions of Sec.209 Cr.P.C. On committal to
the Sessions Court at Gandhinagar, the case
came to be registered as Sessions Case
No.120/2011.
4. Vide Exh.9 –Charge came to be framed against
the accused appellant by Additional Sessions
Judge, Gandhinagar, dated 18/04/2012.
5. During the course of trial, prosecution examined
the following witnesses.
Sr.No. Name of the witness Exh.1 Dr.Bipin Motilal Patel, Medical Officer,
State of Gujarat(Notice to be served through the Ld.Public Prosecutor, High Court ofGujarat, Sola-Ahmedabad. ... Respondent
Application U/s.389 of Cr.P.C.,1973 for suspension of substantive order of sentence imposed by the the judgment and order of conviction passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar dated 04/07/2013 in Sessions Case No.120/2011 convicting the accused appellant for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A and 306 of the IPC.
TO,THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OFTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT ATSOLA-AHMEDABAD.
THE HUMBLE APPEAL OF THE
16
APPELLANT ABOVE NAMED :
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT :
1. The accused – applicant was convicted by the
Trial Court herein for the offence punishable U/s.
498-A IPC and sentencing the appellant to
undergo RI for a term of 3 years with fine of
Rs.2000/- i.d S.I. for two months and further
convicting under Section 306 of IPC and
sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 5
years with fine of Rs.3000/- i.d. S.I. for three
months in Sessions Case No.120/2011.
2. The accused-applicant has preferred
substantive Appeal by raising manifold
grounds, before the Hon’ble Court against
the judgment and order of his conviction
and sentence dated 04/07/2013 passed by
the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge,
Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case
No.120/2011.
3. Having regard to the evidence on record
the judgment and order of conviction is
erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of
17
law. The sentence imposed is R.I. for 5
years. It is submitted that the appeal will
take considerable long period of time
before it is taken-up for hearing and final
disposal and therefore, pending the final
disposal of the main Appeal substantive
order of sentence imposed by the Trial
Court deserves to be suspended and the
accused-applicant be ordered to be
released on bail subject to terms and
conditions which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit to impose.
4. The applicant accused says and submits
that fine is paid by the accused-applicant
and from the date of arrest of the applicant
the applicant is in judicial custody and at
present he is undergoing sentence as a
convict prisoner.
5. The applicant accused craves leave of this
Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely upon the
facts and grounds set-out in his criminal
appeal and the applicant accused is very
hopeful that he will succeed in criminal
18
appeal and the order of conviction and
sentence passed against him would be
quashed and set aside.
6. The accused-applicant is in jail since his
conviction on 16/07/2011 and since the
appeal might not be taken-up for
considerable period of time, the present
applicant may be released on bail and the
substantive order of sentence may be
suspended till the disposal of the captioned
appeal.
7. Except this application, no other
application has been preferred by the
applicant to this Hon’ble Court against the
impugned judgment and order of conviction
and sentence.
8. The applicant-accused craves leave of this
Hon’ble Court to add, amend, alter, delete
or rescind any of the grounds stated in this
application.
9. The applicant- accused therefore, most
humbly begs to pray that –
19
A) pending admission and/or final disposal of
the main Criminal Appeal, the substantive
order of sentence imposed upon the accused-
applicant by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions
Judge, Gandhinagar, dated 04/07/2013 in
Sessions Case No.120/2011 be suspended and
the accused-applicant be ordered to be
released on bail subject to terms and
conditions which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit to impose;
B) as the accused-applicant in jail, the
affidavit be dispensed with;
C) pass such orders as thought fit.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE
THE APPLICANT SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND,
EVER PRAY.
AHMEDABAD. …..………………………… (Hardik H. Dave)
Date: /02/2014 Advocate for the Applicant
20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DISTRICT: GANDHINAGAR.
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. OF 2014( Under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. )
State of Gujarat(Notice to be served through the Ld.Public Prosecutor, High Court ofGujarat, Sola-Ahmedabad. ... Respondent
Application for condonation of delay in preferring Appeal against the judgment and order of conviction passed by 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar dated 04/07/2013 in Sessions Case No.120/2011 convicting the accused appellant for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A and 306 of the IPC.
TO,THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OFTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT ATSOLA-AHMEDABAD.
THE HUMBLE APPEAL OF THEAPPELLANT ABOVE NAMED :
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT :
1. The accused – applicant was convicted by the
Trial Court herein for the offence punishable U/s.
498-A IPC and sentencing the appellant to
undergo RI for a term of 3 years with fine of
Rs.2000/- i.d S.I. for two months and further
22
convicting under Section 306 of IPC and
sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 5
years with fine of Rs.3000/- i.d. S.I. for three
months in Sessions Case No.120/2011.
2. The accused-applicant has preferred
substantive Appeal by raising manifold
grounds, before the Hon’ble Court against
the judgment and order of his conviction
and sentence dated 04/07/2013 passed by
the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge,
Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case
No.120/2011.
3. The applicant hails from a very lower strata of
society. There is no body in the family except
the applicant. On account of acute monetary
constraints and other problems the accused
applicant was unable to prefer Criminal Appeal
within the period of limitation and because of
monetary constraints the appeal could not be
preferred in time and there is a delay in
preferring the same.
23
4. The delay has occasioned on account of a
genuine problem and not due to any negligence
or carelessness of the accused-applicant.
5. The delay of ___ days in preferring the Appeal
deserves to be condoned in the interest of
justice.
6. The accused-applicant right from the date of
incident is in jail and there is nobody in the
family except mother.
7. Except this, no other application has been
preferred by the applicant in this Hon’ble Court
or any other Court on the subject matter.
8. The applicant therefore, most humbly prays that
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to –
A) condone delay of ____ days in preferring Criminal
Appeal against judgment and order passed by
the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge Gandhinagar
in Sessions Case No.120/2011;
24
B) pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of