Case Title:
HUSSAINBHAI ASGARALI LOKHANDWALA And Ors. VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT And Ors.
Date Of Order:
14th August 2024
Bench:
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Parties:
Appellants: HUSSAINBHAI ASGARALI LOKHANDWALA And Ors.
Respondents: STATE OF GUJARAT And Ors.
Subject:
In its judgment on May 6, 2016, the Gujarat High Court reduced the severity of Hussain Bhai Asgarali Lokhandwala's conviction. Nevertheless, the court imposed a five-year sentence of rigorous imprisonment. The sentence should be modified to reflect the time Hussain Bhai has already served in prison, as a result of the specific circumstances and the passage of time, following a thorough analysis. As a result, the Supreme Court partially granted the appeal, confirming the conviction but adjusting the penalty to the time that had already been served. This resulted in the prompt release of Hussain Bhai.
Important Provisions
Indian Penal Code
- Section 304 Part I: A person who commits a crime that qualifies as “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” faces a sentence of life in prison or a term of up to ten years in jail, as well as a fine. The offence must be performed with both knowledge and good intentions.
- Section 304 Part II: According to the law, anyone found guilty of an act that results in death, an act that is undertaken with the intent to cause death or a physical injury that “is likely to result in death” faces a sentence of up to ten years in jail, a fine, or both.
- Additionally, it must be proven that the act was carried out knowing it would likely result in death but with no desire to do so or any bodily harm that would result in doing so.
- Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Code Of Criminal Procedure
- Section 313: Power to examine the accused:
- In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court—
- may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
- shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case:
- Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
- No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1).
- The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.
- The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.
- 1[(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.]
Facts
This ruling concludes Criminal Appeal Nos. 1691, 1692, 1693, 1694, and 1695 of 2023. The primary appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 1691 of 2023, was submitted by Hussain Bhai Asgarali Lokhandwala.
This appeal challenges the verdict and directive given by the Gujarat High Court on 06.05.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2007. The High Court, in its order, altered the appellant's conviction from Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 304 Part II IPC.
As a result, the appellant was given a five-year term of rigorous imprisonment (RI), and the trial court's decision to impose a fine was maintained. In a same manner, the High Court modified the conviction of co-accused Asgar Ali Onali Lokhandwala under the same clause, but limited his sentence to the time he had already spent.
Furthermore, Asgar Ali Onali Lokhandwala filed an appeal against the High Court's order. The High Court did alter or change the sentence that was given but they had upheld the conviction, and this alteration is being challenged. The appeals also contest the denial of Criminal Revision Application Nos. 294 of 2007 and 295 of 2007, which affirmed the trial court's decision to declare the accused not guilty in Sessions Case No. 171 of 2004.
The High Court, by its ruling, changed the defendant's conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and adjusted the penalties accordingly. Accused No. 1 was given a term equivalent to the time they have already spent in custody, while accused No. 2 received a sentence of five years of harsh incarceration. The appeals and criminal revision petitions were resolved appropriately.
The appeal filed in November, 2000, contains the facts of the case and as per the same, there was a disagreement occurred between Abbas Bhai and his in-laws, resulting in a conflict at Asgar Ali Onali Lokhandwala's house.
Hussain Bhai Asgarali Lokhandwala, the second accused, fatally injured Idrishbhai Fidaali Mithiborewala with a weapon during the confrontation. This sequence of appeals was the result of the defendant's apprehension and subsequent legal proceedings, which were the outcome of the filing of a First Information Report.
Upon the completion of the inquiry, a chargesheet was filed with the trial court against the accused. Due to the fact that the allegations were connected to a criminal offense that falls within the jurisdiction of a sessions court, the case was moved to the Court of Sessions. During the trial, the prosecution side had examined and analysed the statements of 22 witnesses and had presented several pieces of documentary evidence.
In its verdict and order dated 07.11.2006, the trial court determined that both defendants, Asgarali Onali Lokhandwala and Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala, were found guilty under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC.
Both defendants were found guilty under Section 304 Part I IPC and were given a five-year term of rigorous imprisonment (RI). In addition, they were instructed to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 apiece, along with a provision for default.
The document clearly said that a sum of Rs. 90,000 from the overall fines was allocated for the purpose of compensating the legal representatives of the deceased individual, Idrishbhai Fidaali Mithiborewala.
Furthermore, the accused people were sentenced to undergo hard imprisonment for a duration of seven days for the conviction under Section 323 IPC. In addition, they were mandated to serve a harsh jail sentence of two years due to their conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The court mandated that all sentences be served simultaneously, considering the duration of imprisonment already completed by the defendant.
In the connected matter stemming from I-C.R. No. 315/2000, there was a case filed. The accused in this case are the husband and in-laws of Onejaben. After the trial, all individuals charged in Sessions Case No. 171 of 2004 were declared not guilty by the trial court in a verdict dated 07.11.2006.
The two defendants, Asgarali Onali Lokhandwala and Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala, then disputed this ruling and appealed to the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2007. In addition, the State filed Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2007 to request an increase in the terms given to the defendants in Sessions Case No. 292 of 2001.
Subsequently, the wounded witness, Husseni Mithiborewala, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 35 of 2007 in the High Court. The purpose of this application was to request a change in the conviction of the two accused individuals from Section 304 Part I IPC to Section 302 IPC.
The High Court also addressed the question of the severity of the punishment by taking up Criminal Revision Application No. 182 of 2007 Suo motu. There was also an application that was filed by , Asgarali Onali Lokhandwala to challenge the acquittal decisions in Sessions Case No. 171 of 2004. In this case, the trial court had cleared many defendants of charges under different sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Bombay Police Act.
The High Court heard all of these appeals and revision petitions together. The High Court, in its ruling on 06.05.2016, modified the convictions of Asgarali Onali Lokhandwala and Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala, changing them from Section 304 Part I IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.
Asgarali Onali Lokhandwala's sentence was commuted to time already served, whilst Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala's punishment was reduced to a term of five years of hard imprisonment. As a result, all subsequent criminal appeals and revision petitions were rejected.
Arguments Of Appellants
The counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. Although the High Court changed the conviction to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, Mr. Goel argued that the imposition of a five-year sentence of severe imprisonment was unfair. He contended that the circumstances warranted a judgment of not guilty.
Furthermore, the testimonies of witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 were specifically emphasized, with particular focus on PW-3. It was contended that their claims of being eyewitnesses were biased by prejudice. According to him, a thorough analysis of their remarks would prove that the defendant acted in self-defence, whereas the deceased and others were the ones who started the fight. This important detail was overlooked by the High Court.
Furthermore, the legal representatives provided evidence from PW-16, PW-17, and PW-21, which indicated that the informant and his family were the instigators of the hostile conduct. The evidence that was presented consisted of the injuries suffered by three individuals from the appellant's family as a result of assault and violence that was carried out by the informant's gang.
In addition, there was were guns found from the possession of PW-3 and PW-5. The appellant's residence was damaged as a result of the pelting of stones, and there was blood of the appellant and the informant that was found on the place of residence. Moreover, the appellant began two separate communications with the police, expressing concern about a potential physical attack by his brother-in-law's family, who outnumbered him.
The appellant side had also made an argument that the lower courts had not paid sufficient attention to the self-defence claim and that because of the same, the conviction and the punishment should be reconsidered and overturned.
Arguments Of Defendants
The counsel for the State of Gujarat expressed her approval for the contested order and decision. When questioned by the Court, she said that the State had not filed an appeal against the altered conviction and revised sentence of accused No. 1, Asgarali Onali Lokhandwala, and accused No. 2, Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala (the appellant). She contended that the appeal lacked merit and urged its dismissal.
The senior counsel for the informant raised an objection to the request made in Criminal Appeal No. 1691 of 2023 and also sought permission for Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2023, which was filed by the informant. She said that both defendants were indisputably accountable for the murder of Idrishbhai Fidaali Mithiborewala.
While the trial court erred in condemning the two defendants only under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC, the High Court compounded the error by altering the decision to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. Considering the statements of PW-1 and other prosecution witnesses, as well as the cross-examination of PW-18, it can be conclusively said that the evidence unambiguously demonstrates a brutal assault on the dead by the two defendants, resulting in his death.
As a result, a case of murder under Section 302 of the IPC has been established. She contended that the Court should intercede in the altered conviction and reduced sentence issued by the High Court and duly denounce both the appellant and the other co-accused.
Turabbhai (PW-1) said that his home and Asgarali Onali Lokhandwala's residence were situated exactly across from each other in the same colony. Asgarali was the father-in-law of Idrishbhai Fidali Mithiborewala's son. Asgarali had a son called Hussain and a daughter named Oneja. Oneja was married to Abbasbhai, who is the son of Idrishbhai.
Abbasbhai and Oneja arrived in Godhra on November 7, 2000, to attend a wedding. Abbasbhai went to see Asgarali in order to get Oneja back, but his request was denied. There was a disagreement that led to Asgarali shoving Turabbhai's wife. Turabbhai and his son Akil accompanied Turabbhai's wife to a dispensary in order to offer assistance.
Turabbhai saw Asgarali cradling Idrishbhai as Hussain ruthlessly thrust a knife into his abdomen. Gopi, the son of Husseni and Idrishbhai, was also subjected to a stabbing incident. Neighbour Kutubuddin Jinwala arrived at the scene.
Asgarali and Hussain went back to their residence, whilst Idrishbhai and Gopi were sent to the hospital. Idrishbhai was pronounced dead upon arrival, while Gopi was subsequently transported to Vadodara for medical care. Turabbhai also documented his wife's injuries.
Arvaben (PW-2), the wife of Turabbhai, provided testimony stating that Idrishbhai was her brother and Abbasbhai was her nephew. Abbas and Oneja have reached Godhra to attend a wedding. Abbasbhai visited Asgarali's residence to get the keys but encountered opposition, resulting in a confrontation. Arvaben was hurt while attempting to mediate an agreement.
Abbas (PW-3) presented a comprehensive account of the day's events, including his attempts to get the keys from Asgarali's apartment. Following a tumultuous altercation, Asgarali overpowered Idrishbhai, after which Hussain lethally stabbed him and caused injuries to PW-5. Kutubuddin Jinwala came, and Idrishbhai was sent to the hospital.
Husseni, also referred to as Gopi (PW-5), offered a comprehensive narrative of the incident, which included the refusal of key access and the subsequent act of stabbing both Idrishbhai and himself. According to Dr.Idrishbhai's cause of death was a specific and forceful penetrating injury, according to Ramesh Chandra (PW-12).
The testifying officer, PW-22, provided testimony regarding the recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offense and the existence of evidence consistent with a physical altercation.
The evidence indicates that Abbas and Oneja were involved in a marital dispute that ultimately resulted in a violent altercation. Hussain fatally stabbed Idrishbhai and inflicted injuries on Gopi during this altercation.
Court’s Analysis
Turabbhai (PW-1) said that his home and Asgarali Onali Lokhandwala's residence were situated exactly across from each other in the same colony. Asgarali was the father-in-law of Idrishbhai Fidali Mithiborewala's son. Asgarali had a son called Hussain and a daughter named Oneja. Oneja was married to Abbasbhai, who is the son of Idrishbhai.
Abbasbhai and Oneja arrived in Godhra on November 7, 2000, to attend a wedding. Abbasbhai went to see Asgarali in order to get Oneja back, but his request was denied. There was a disagreement that led to Asgarali shoving Turabbhai's wife. Turabbhai and his son Akil accompanied Turabbhai's wife to a dispensary in order to offer assistance.
Turabbhai saw Asgarali cradling Idrishbhai as Hussain ruthlessly thrust a knife into his abdomen. Gopi, the son of Husseni and Idrishbhai, was also subjected to a stabbing incident. Neighbour Kutubuddin Jinwala arrived at the scene.
Idrishbhai alongwith Gopi had to be admitted to a hospital, whereas, Asgarali and Hussain went back to their residence. Idrishbhai was pronounced dead upon arrival, while Gopi was subsequently transported to Vadodara for medical care. Turabbhai also documented his wife's injuries.
Arvaben (PW-2), the wife of Turabbhai, provided testimony stating that Idrishbhai was her brother and Abbasbhai was her nephew. Abbas and Oneja have reached Godhra to attend a wedding. Abbasbhai visited Asgarali's residence to get the keys but encountered opposition, resulting in a confrontation. Arvaben was hurt while attempting to mediate an agreement.
Abbas (PW-3) presented a comprehensive account of the day's events, including his attempts to get the keys from Asgarali's apartment. Following a tumultuous altercation, Asgarali overpowered Idrishbhai, after which Hussain lethally stabbed him and caused injuries to PW-5. Kutubuddin Jinwala came, and Idrishbhai was sent to the hospital.
Husseni, also referred to as Gopi (PW-5), offered a comprehensive narrative of the incident, which included the refusal of key access and the subsequent act of stabbing both Idrishbhai and himself.According to Dr.Idrishbhai's cause of death was a specific and forceful penetrating injury, according to Ramesh Chandra (PW-12).
The testifying officer, PW-22, provided testimony regarding the recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offense and the existence of evidence consistent with a physical altercation.
The evidence indicates that Abbas and Oneja were involved in a marital dispute that ultimately resulted in a violent altercation. Hussain fatally stabbed Idrishbhai and inflicted injuries on Gopi during this altercation.
Held
The Supreme Court stated that the trial court initially convicted Asgarali and Hussainbhai under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as on Sections 323 and 324. The High Court reevaluated this verdict and reduced it to Section 304 Part II IPC upon the appeal and so in the present matter, Hussainbhai's sentence was increased to five years in prison, but Asgarali's punishment was reduced to the time he had already spent in prison.
Hussainbhai was in class 12 when the incident occurred. At the time, his sister Oneja and her husband Abbasbhai were fighting about their marriage. The court recognized that it was natural for a young person like Hussainbhai to experience emotional distress as a result of the alleged mistreatment of his sister.
The court had further stated that the act in question had happened at Asgarali's home, not Idrishbhai's, and was not planned. There was an attack upon the dead and PW-5 with a knife. This suggests that the conduct was spontaneous and driven by strong emotions, rather than a planned purpose to inflict serious harm.
The High Court acknowledged that the event transpired during a period of intense emotions, during which both parties were unable to control their anger. In light of these circumstances, the court determined that it was equitable to reduce Hussainbhai's sentence to the time he had already served in detention, while continuing to affirm his conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.
As a result, the Supreme Court partially granted the appeal, reducing Hussainbhai's sentence to the length of imprisonment he had previously served. The court ordered his immediate release, provided that he was not required for any additional
