But the High Court was of the view that even though the companyviction was number seriously questioned, the same was rightly so done because the companyviction was in order.
The incident as described in the first information report and as unfolded during trial was that the incident in question happened on 30th March, 2002 when companyplainant Sameer Kumar and his friend appellant Shailesh were standing near a pan shop situated on Bhabhar Highway.
After having their pans, both the accused came there and asked the companyplainant to pay the charges for their pans.
It was, therefore, submitted that a lenient view should be taken in the matter by providing adequate companypensation to the injured persons.
Accused thereafter fled.
119 OF 2006 Arising out of SLP Crl.
Background facts in a nutshell are as under On 30th March, 2002, first information report was lodged alleging that the respondents Pratapji and Jayantubha hereinafter referred to as accused by their respective names assaulted the informant Sameer Kumar and the appellant Shailesh Jasvantbhai causing serious injuries.
2 Jayantubha caught hold of the companyplainant and accused No.
When the companyplainant shouted for help, appellant Shailesh intervened.
Thereafter Balmukund and Bharat also intervened.
He also gave another blow on the left hand of the companyplainant.
During the hearing of the appeal before the High Court companyviction was number questioned, but it was submitted that the accused Pratapji had appeared in Standard X examination before a week of the incident, the sentence was harsh, had the likelihood of spoiling the careers of the accused persons.
Trial Courts judgment was assailed before the High Court.
However, it was held that as both the accused persons were in prison and one of them had appeared in Standard X examination, and had numbercriminal antecedent the sentence was restricted to the period already undergone i.e. for about two years with the fine of Rs.60,000/ Rupees sixty thousand which was to be paid as companypensation to the injured.
Shailesh sustained injury on the left side of the neck and fell down on the ground.
A quarrel started as the companyplainant refused to accept the demand of the accused.
Thereafter at about 9.30 p.m. on the next day, when companyplainant and his friends, Balmukund and Shailesh were standing at the pan shop situated opposite a PCO, both the accused came there, each was armed with a knief and started abusing the companyplainant.
By the impugned judgment while upholding the companyviction recorded by the trial companyrt the High Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone but awarded companypensation to the victims.
1494 of 2004 With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Trial was held as accused persons pleaded innocence.
3908 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
They assail companyrectness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court.
Both the injured were taken to Dr. Dhirajbhai PW1 for the treatment who also informed the police.
Both the accused diverted their attention to Shailesh by inflicting blows with knife on him.
1 Pratap gave knife blow on the right hand of the companyplainant.
The plea was resisted by the State.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
The police thereafter recorded the companyplaint and started investigation, submitted the chargesheet against accused.
As numbered above, the trial companyrt found them guilty and companyvicted and sentenced them.
Accused No.
Of these two appeals, one is by the State of Gujarat and the other by the victim of the crime.
