YUVRAJSINGH SARDARSINGH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2016-8-125
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on August 12,2016

Yuvrajsingh Sardarsingh Parmar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Present appeal assails the judgment and order dated 10/12/2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, th Additional Sessions Court, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 218 of 2006, whereby, while acquitting the original accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 r/w. 114 and 504 r/w. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and Sections 25(1)(a) and (b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for brevity, 'the Arms Act'), the appellant herein original accused No. 1 came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 307 and 188 of the IPC and Sections 25(1)(a) and (b) of the Arms Act. For the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for ten years and a fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment (SI) for ten days, whereas, for the offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC, to undergo SI for one month and for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, to undergo RI for five years and a fine of Rs.200/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further SI for seven days and under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act, to undergo RI for one year and a fine of Rs.200/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further SI for seven days. The appellant accused No. 1 was also convicted in a Sessions Case No. 224 of 2001 and hence, the sentences imposed in the present case (i.e. Sessions Case No. 218 of 2006) and in Sessions Case No. 224 of 2001 for different offences, were ordered to run concurrently, besides, giving benefit of set off.
(2.) Before proceeding with the final hearing of the matter, Mr. K. L. Pandya, the learned advocate for the respondent State, made available for perusal the jail report of the appellant accused No. 1, while the appellant accused No. 1 was released on temporary bail, twice he jumped the bail and absconded. He submitted that in the year 2004, he absconded for 642 days, whereas, while he was enlarged on temporary bail in the year 2014, he again jumped the bail and since then, he is absconding.
(3.) Filtering the unnecessary details the facts of the prosecution case are that on 10/06/2006 at about 22:15 hours, the accused, went for watching a movie at Valentine Cinema and while asking for the tickets at the ticket counter No. 2, ticket clerk namely Baba Ketan Sahu, denied of having any seat available since it was housefull, due to which, the accused, allegedly, got angry and in the aid and abetment of each other, started quarrelling with the said ticket clerk in public and abused him. The accused No. 1 allegedly attacked the said ticket clerk with an unlicensed gun possessed by him and shot fire at him and thereby, attempted to commit murder. Thus, the accused committed the alleged offence, for which a complaint came to be lodged against them. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are, hereinafter, referred to as per their original status. 3.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court at Surat. The trial Court framed charge against the accused, which was read over to them. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence, as under: JUDGEMENT_125_LAWS(GJH)8_2016.HTML;


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