(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.L.R. Pujari for the appellant-State. The present appeal is filed through the learned Public Prosecutor against the judgement and order dated 14th October 2011 in Sessions Case No.298 of 2010 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Ahmedabad City, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to award rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for five months under sections 307 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, against all the four accused.
The learned APP invited attention of the Court to para 17 of the judgment wherein the learned Judge has discussed the evidence of Dr.Samir Govindbhai Parikh, who is examined as PW-1, Exh.22. The learned Judge has recorded that PW-1 has deposed that the victim had sustained three injures, of which the first one oozing blood, which was of 3 cm x 2 cm above navel. So far as other two injuries are concerned it is not noted/ recorded by the doctor as to whether they were oozing blood or not. The learned Judge has also recorded that witness has deposed that due to injury in the abdomen there was blood collected and that fact was deposed by the witness after seeing X-ray. The learned Judge has recorded that the witness has specifically deposed that the said injury is possible by muddamal-knife and if immediate treatment is not given it is likely to cause death. The learned APP submitted that the learned Judge has taken too lenient view in the matter and has overlooked the fact that in the matter of offence under section 307 of the IPC, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offence is liable to be punished either with imprisonment for life or to such punishment as is mentioned in the earlier part of the section. The learned APP submitted that the very fact that the witness-doctor has unequivocally deposed that the injury is possible by the muddamal-knife and then if immediate treatment is not available the same could have caused death. The learned Judge ought to have imposed sentence of any description by imposing life imprisonment or imprisonment for 10 years. The learned APP submitted that imposing imprisonment for 5 years is too lenient view taken by the learned Judge which is not supported by the evidence on record.
2. ADMIT.
3. Issue bailable warrant against all the respondents-accused in a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) each, though it is mentioned that the convicts are in Jail.
(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) (PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) karim Top