LAWS(GJH)-2012-3-157

RATANSINH @ BAKO DHULABHAI BARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On March 21, 2012
Ratansinh @ Bako Dhulabhai Bariya Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals are being decided together as they arise from the common judgment and order dated 08.06.2006 in Sessions Case No.10 of 2005 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.7, Panchmahals at Godhra, whereby the three appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', for sake of brevity), and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default to pay fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one month. The trial court convicted them also for the offence under section 504 of IPC and sentenced to three months imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/ and in default to undergo imprisonment for further one month. For the offence under Section 114, IPC, they were convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/, and in default to undergo imprisonment for further one month. In respect of conviction recorded under section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951, the appellants were imposed fine of Rs.100 and upon failure to pay the amount of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for seven days. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) RATANSINH @ Bako Dhulabhai Bariya, appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1245 of 2006, was accused No.1 (A1), Mukeshbhai Raijibhai Bariya, appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2007, was accused No.2 (A2) and Raijibhai Dhulabhai Bariya, appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1696 of 2006 was accused No.3 (A3), before the trial court. (for the sake of convenience they are hereinafter referred to as A1, A2 and A3)

(3.) THIS Court heard Ms. Sadhna Sagar, learned advocate for appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1245 of 2006 and Ms. Nisha Parikh, learned advocate for the appellants in the other two appeals. Mr. R. C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing in all three appeals, was heard on behalf of the State.