KUSHALBHAI RATANBHAI ROHIT & 3 Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-309
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on July 04,2016

Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit And 3 Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Present Appeal, Filed By The Appellants Original Accused, Assails the judgment and order dated 09/11/2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 296 of 2004, whereby, the appellants original accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 222 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and the appellant original accused No. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment for one year, whereas, the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 original accused Nos. 2 to 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2½ years and fine of Rs.2,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment for six months.
(2.) Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Prosecution Are That One Accused, undergoing sentence in the Vadodara Central Jail, was required to be produced before the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad on 04/08/2003, for which an escort was arranged. As on that day, since the matter wad adjourned, the said accused was taken for a cup of tea to one of the stalls situated outside the Court compound and on his request to see his ailing mother, escort persons chose to so do by taking him in an autorickshaw but when they reached near Hatkeshwar circle, these persons allegedly started nauseating and vomiting as some substance alleged to have been administered by the relatives of the said accused in the tea and while arrangement was being made for medicines from a medical store, the said accused fled away from the custody of the escort persons i.e. the present appellants accused. Thus, the appellants accused committed the alleged offence for which, a complaint came to be lodged, in which, the trial culminated into conviction, as aforesaid.
(3.) Heard Mr. H. M. Parikh, The Learned Advocate For The Appellants original accused and Mr. K. L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.