STATE OF GUJARAT vs BHARATBHAI ISHWARBHAI BHATI

R/CR.A/2085/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240576262026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ENHANCEMENT) NO. 2085 of 2026
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHARATBHAI ISHWARBHAI BHATI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ASMITA PATEL, LD. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS

Date : 29/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Leave to amend is granted. Necessary amendment
shall be carried out forthwith.
2. This enhancement appeal has been preferred by the
State under Section 418 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2026 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions
Court, Court No.19, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.262
of 2022, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the
respondents (i.e. the original accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6) for
the offences punishable under Sections 299(c), 304 Part-II,
323, 324, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
and sentenced them as under:
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:00:59 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2085/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240576262026)
Section Imprisonment Fine
(Rs.)
In default of
payment of fine
299(c) read
Rigorous
Imprisonment for
25000 Simple
imprisonment for
with 304
Part-II of
07 years
06 months
the IPC
323 of the
Simple
Imprisonment for
500 Simple
imprisonment for
IPC
03 months
01 month
324 of the
Simple
Imprisonment for
1200 Simple
imprisonment for
IPC
01 year
03 months
143 of the
Simple
Imprisonment for
500 Simple
imprisonment for
IPC
01 month
01 month
144 of the
Simple
Imprisonment for
1000 Simple
imprisonment for
IPC
06 months
02 months
147 of the
Simple
Imprisonment for
1000 Simple
imprisonment for
IPC
06 months
02 months
148 of the
Simple
Imprisonment for
1200 Simple
imprisonment for
IPC
08 months
03 months
3. The facts of the case, giving rise to the present appeal,
may be summarized as under :
(i) The complainant, Kamleshbhai Badhabhai Solanki,
was present at his shop at around 7:30 p.m. on 10.04.2022
when Bharatbhai Bhati (accused No.1) and Rutvik @ Bhano
Dahyabhai Ladhel (accused in Sessions Case No.399 of
2022) parked their motorcycle in front of his shop. Upon the
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:00:59 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2085/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240576262026)
complainant asking them to park it elsewhere, an
altercation ensued between them and, thereafter, they left
the place. Keeping a grudge over the said incident, on
11.04.2022, at around 12:15 a.m., both the said accused
persons along with other co-accused, returned at the shop
of the complainant and picked up an altercation with the
complainant. It is alleged that the accused No.2 was armed
with an iron pipe, whereas the accused Nos.1 and 3 were
carrying wooden sticks. By forming an unlawful assembly,
they assaulted the complainant, due to which, his right little
finger got injured. The accused had also assaulted the
complainant’s sister, Gitaben, and caused an injury to her
left shoulder. When the complainant’s mother, Hariben
Badhabhai Solanki intervened, one of the accused persons
assaulted her on the head causing serious injuries. The
complainant thereafter lodged the complaint regarding the
said incident against the accused persons.
(ii) That a complaint came to be lodged against the
present respondents- accused at the Gujarat University
Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 324, 143, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as well
as, under Section 135 and 135(A) of the Gujarat Police Act,
which was registered as CR No.11191017220327 of 2022.
(iii) Subsequently, on 13.04.2022 at around 11:00 pm, the
complainant’s mother, succumbed to her injuries, during
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:00:59 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2085/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240576262026)
the treatment. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer
submitted a report for addition of the offences punishable
under Section 302, 325, 326, 114 and 148 of the IPC.
(iv) After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet
came to be filed against the present respondents-accused
for the alleged offences before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, which was committed to the Sessions Court and
the same came to be registered as Sessions Case No.262 of
2022. The learned Judge framed the Charge vide Exh.10
against the present respondents-accused, whereupon the
respondents-accused pleaded innocent and claimed to be
tried.
4. To bring home the charge against the respondents-
accused, the prosecution had examined, in all, 18 witnesses
and adduced 26 documentary evidence in support of the
case, which are as follow:
WITNESSES OF THE COMPLAINANT
PW
No.
NAME OF THE WITNESS WITNESS EXHIBIT
PW-1 Kamleshbhai Badhabhai
Complainant 36
Solanki
PW-2 Dipakbhai Ishwarbhai Solanki Panch witness 39
PW-3 Mohanbhai Jethabhai Bhati Panch witness 43
PW-4 Mavjibhai Devjibhai Patel Panch witness 46
PW-5 Dr.Pragjibhai Bavabhai Rathod Doctor witness 48
PW-6 Dr.Seema Devabhai Rathavi Panch witness 51
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:00:59 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2085/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240576262026)
PW-7 Gitaben Badhabhai Solanki witness 53
PW-8 Dr.Harsh Surendrabhai Patel Doctor witness 61
PW-9 Govindbhai Laxmanbhai Bhati Panch witness 63
PW-10 Ratnabhai Dhanaji Rathod Panch witness 70
PW-11 Punjaben Jagdishbhai Rathod witness 78
PW-12 Kalabhai Dungarbhai Parmar witness 81
PW-13 Mayaben Naranbhai Rathod witness 87
PW-14 Tejuben Khemabhai witness 91
PW-15 Vinubhai Haribhai Desai Police witness 94
PW-16 Dilipbhai Dharmabhai Ninama Police witness 97
PW-17 Mahendrakumar Ishwarbhai
Police witness 100
Parmar
PW-18 Virajsinh Janaksinh Jadeja Police witness 104
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr.
Description Exhibit
No.
1 Complaint 37
2 Panchnama of scene of offence 40
3 Panchnama of physical condition of the accused
and recovery of muddamal
44
4 Panch slip recovered from muddamal article
No.1
45
5 Inquest Panchnama 49
6 P.M. Note 50
7 Treatment Certificate PW-6 P-1
8 Treatment Certificate 62
9 Panchnama of physical condition of the accused
and recovery of muddamal
64
10 Panchnama regarding the clothes worn by the
65
injured person at the time of the incident and
the samples collected during treatment
11 Inquest Panchnama 66
12 Panchnama regarding the samples seized during
67
the post-mortem examination of the deceased.
13 FSL site inspection report/list 69
14 Panchnama regarding seizure of the motorcycle 71
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:00:59 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2085/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240576262026)
15 Panchnama regarding the physical condition of
72
the accused persons
16 Notification prohibiting possession/ carrying of
95
weapons
17 Report under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. 98
18 Information/ report from S.P.Hospital 99
19 Report regarding addition of sections 101
20 Panch slip 102
21 FSL receipt/ acknowledgement 106
22 FSL letter and report 107
23 FSL Serological Department report 108
24 CDR Form 109 to 111
25 Call details 112
26 Extract of control message 113 to 115
5. The learned Judge recorded the further statement of
the respondents-accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
with regard to the incriminating circumstances made
against them in the evidence rendered by the prosecution
which, the respondents-accused denied contending that
they have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence.
Thereafter, the respondents-accused were called upon to
lead evidence in their defence, however, they did not do it,
and after hearing the learned advocates appearing for both
the sides, the learned Judge convicted the accused and
sentenced them as mentioned hereinabove.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of
sentence awarded by the trial court, the appellant-State has
preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the
sentence imposed upon the respondents-accused, mainly on
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:00:59 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2085/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240576262026)
the ground that the sentence awarded by the trial court is
highly inadequate and disproportionate to the offences
committed by the respondents-accused, and the trial court
has committed an error in taking a lenient view while
imposing a lesser sentence.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-STATE .
7. Ms.Asmita Patel, learned APP appearing for the
appellant- State has submitted that the trial court has,
without assigning any adequate and special reasons,
awarded inadequate sentence. The law in this regard is well-
settled that while awarding the punishment, the court
should take into consideration the nature of the offence, the
circumstances under which it was committed and the
degree of deliberation shown by the offender. Ms.Patel has
submitted that the measure of punishment should be
proportionate to the gravity of the offence. In the facts of the
present case, the respondents-accused have been held
guilty for the commission of offences under Sections 299(c),
304 Part-II, 323, 324, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian
Penal Code, for which, the maximum punishment is ten
years with fine, however, the trial court, considering the age
of the respondents-accused as well as considering the fact
that the respondents-accused were not having any past
antecedents, imposed sentence of seven years for the
offences punishable under Sections 299(c), 304 Part-II,
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:00:59 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2085/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240576262026)
323, 324, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. In the the present case, despite there being
overwhelming evidence against the respondents-accused,
the trial Court has awarded a lesser sentence, which seems
to be a travesty of justice and the same would send a wrong
message to the society. The trial Court ought to have taken
a deterrent view while imposing the sentence in such a
serious offence. Learned APP Ms.Patel has lastly submitted
that taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances
as well as the seriousness and gravamen of the offences
committed by the respondents-accused, the appeal is
required to be allowed and the sentence awarded by the trial
court may be enhanced to the maximum punishment for the
offences with which the respondents-accused have been
charged.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
present case, prima facie it appears that the appellant-State
has filed the present appeal for enhancement of sentence on
a very limited ground. Admittedly, it appears from the bare
perusal of the judgement of the trial Court that the trial
Court, after taking into consideration the age of the
respondents-accused, as well as, considering the fact that
the respondents-accused were not having any past
antecedents, has imposed a fixed term of sentence of seven
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:00:59 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2085/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240576262026)
years upon the respondents-accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 299(c), 304 Part-II, 323, 324,
143, 144, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code. While
awarding the sentence, both the sides were afforded
opportunity of being heard, and after hearing the learned
APP and the defence counsel, the trial Court has assigned
the following reasons for awarding the lesser punishment:
(i) The accused Nos. 1 to 3 belong to the same family and
if they all have to remain in jail, then the entire family will
have to suffer a great hardship.
(ii) All the accused persons are of very young age, and the
incident arose out of a trivial issue.
(iii) The accused persons are not habitual offenders and
they are not having any past criminal antecedents.
(iv) Only one accused person had inflicted a single blow on
the head of the mother of the complainant, due to which,
she succumbed during the treatment.
(v) The conduct of the accused persons during the trial
and absence of any material showing their involvement in
any other offence are also relevant aspects to be taken into
consideration.
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:00:59 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2085/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240576262026)
(vi) The trial Court has also considered the provisions of
Section 299(c) of the IPC and arrived at the conclusion that
the offence proved against the accused is culpable homicide
not amounting to murder.
(vii) As discussed in the judgement, the trial Court has
observed that the accused had no intention to cause the
death of the deceased, but they had the knowledge that
their act would likely to cause death. Accordingly, as per the
trial Court, the offence falls under Section 304 Part II of the
IPC, punishable with imprisonment of upto ten years, or
fine, or both.
9. On the overall appreciation and reanalysis of the entire
evidence, it appears that the trial court, considering the fact
that the respondents-accused were not having any past
criminal antecedents as well as taking into consideration
the nature of the incident as well as the circumstances and
the manner in which it was occurred, has imposed the
lesser sentence upon the respondents-accused to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine, which
cannot be said to be perverse or illegal since the trial court
has exercised its discretion to impose the said sentence.
Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order
passed by the trial court, since, while exercising the judicial
discretion, the trial court has recorded sufficient and
adequate reasons. This Court is satisfied with the reasoning
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:00:59 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2085/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240576262026)
assigned by the trial court on the aspect of sentence and,
therefore, no interference is required to be made with the
discretion exercised by the trial court. It is settled position
of law that the question of sentence is a matter of discretion
and if sufficient reasons are recorded by the trial court, then
the High Court should not interfere with the decision of the
trial court on the issue of sentence.
10. This Court deems it fit to refer to the principles, as laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bed Raj vs.
State of U.P. , reported in AIR 1955 SC 778 , governing the
exercise of power by the High Court while enhancing the
sentence imposed by the trial court, which reads thus :
“A question of a sentence is a matter of discretion and it
is well settled that when discretion has been properly
exercised along accepted judicial lines, an appellate
court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused
person except for very strong reasons which must be
disclosed on the face of the judgment; see for example
the observations in -'Dalip Singh v/ s. State of Punjab',
and 'Nar Sigh v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh'.
In a matter of enhancement there should not be
interference when the sentence passed imposes
substantial punishment. Interference is only called for
when it is manifestly inadequate. In our opinion, these
principles have not been observed. It is impossible to
hold in the circumstances described that the Sessions
Judge did not impose a substantial sentence, and no
adequate reason has been assigned by the learned
High Court Judges for considering the sentence
manifestly inadequate.
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:00:59 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2085/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240576262026)
In the circumstances, bearing all the considerations of
this case in mind, we are of opinion that the appeal
(which is limited to the question of sentence) should be
allowed and that the sentence imposed by the High
Court should be set aside and that of the Sessions Court
restored.”
11. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the findings recorded by the trial court do not suffer
from any perversity or illegality. The findings recorded by
the trial court are absolutely just and proper, and in
recording the same, no illegality or infirmity has been
committed by the trial court. Therefore, this Court does not
find any ground warranting interference with the order of
sentence passed by the trial court.
12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this
Court is in complete agreement with the order of sentence
passed by the trial court, therefore, no interference is
warranted. The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is
hereby dismissed in limine. Records and proceedings be
sent back to the concerned court.
sd/-
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J)
DIPTI PATEL
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 00:00:59 IST 2026