State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gaurav Bhatia CA No.

289/2017

FINAL SUBMISSION
INDEX

Serial No. Content Page No.

1. Order on Sentence 2-3

2. Forum, Provision & Grounds of Appeal 4

1
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gaurav Bhatia CA No. 289/2017

In the Court of Hon’ble Vikrant Singh, ADJ Sessions Court, Ghaziabad

FIR No. 45/2017

In the matter-

State of Uttar Pradesh…………………………............………………… Prosecution

Versus

Gaurav Bhatia ……….…….……………….…….……………………. Accused

FIR No. 52/2017

P.S.: Indirapuram

1. S. No. of the case 289 / 2017

2. Name of the complainant Pankaj Singh
3. Date of commission of offence 28/07/2016
4. Name of the accused Gaurav Bhatia
5. Offence complained of S.363, 364(A),384, 386, 389
6. Plea of guilt Accused persons pleaded not guilty
7. Date of Judgment 06.09.2017
8. Date of Order on Sentence 06.09.2017

2
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gaurav Bhatia CA No. 289/2017

ORDER
1. Vide judgment dated 06/09/2017, the convict gaurav Bhatia was convicted for the offence
under Section 363, 364(A), 384, 386, 389 IPC.
2. The Learned Defence Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict asked the court to take a
lenient view on the grounds that the convict is 35 years of age, and there is no criminal
antecedent of the convict. It is further argued by the Learned Counsel that the convict that
the convict is a law abiding citizen and has never intended to escape or run away.
3. In the search conducted by the Officer-in-charge on 30.07.2016 at the accuser’s residence,
a black bag filled with Rs. 1 crore in cash and the car(white colored Maruti Van) with
registration number- UP 14 CE 9246 was also seized by the police. The car was used in
committing the offence was verified by the CCTV Footage transcription also which was
recorded in CCTV Camera installed outside the Delhi Public School indirapuram.
4. Keeping in mind all these facts, the Defence counsel pleaded for a lenient punishment and
lessor fine.
5. The court has also taken into consideration while deciding the quantum of fine that the
convict is the sole earning member of the family and the whole family depends on his sole
income which will be taken away because of his conviction.
6. In view of the abovementioned discussions and reasons, court is of the opinion that the
prosecution has proven the case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt
under Section, 364(A), 384, 386, 389 of the IPC and hence, the accused person deserves to
be punished death penalty or for Life Imprisonment, Death penalty prescribed, may be
only awarded in cases which falls in rarest of rare category as the present matter does not
shock the conscious of public at large for the same reason Simple Imprisonment for life
along with fine of Rs. 20,000/-.
7. The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against the judgement.
8. Copy of the judgement is to be given to the convict, free of cost.
9. File be consigned to the record room Make the necessary entry in the Judgment register.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 06th day of September 2017 at the Session
Court, Ghaziabad

(VIKRANT SINGH)
SESSION JUDGE,
GHAZIABAD.

3
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gaurav Bhatia CA No. 289/2017

Date: 06.09.2017

4
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gaurav Bhatia CA No. 289/2017

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ALONG WITH THE IDENTIFICATION OF FORUM FOR

APPEAL

FORUM FOR APPEAL:

The Counsel for the Prosecution can appeal to the in the high court of Allahabad at Uttar Pradesh
Decrease of sentence in accordance with Section 374 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

STATUS OF PARTIES:

State of Uttar Pradesh.................................................................Appellant/Prosecution

Versus

Gaurav Bhatia ...........................................................................Respondent/Convict

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:

On question of sentence:

 The sentence awarded is exorbitantly high. While considering the question of sentence
relative weight must be given to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In the
present case the mitigating circumstances clearly outweigh the former as the convict is a
first time offender and is of very young age due to which there is high probability of
reformation. Also the cause of the murder is the sudden provocation due to the extra-
marital affair of the deceased and is clearly not a case in which prior planning to commit
the offence was involved. This should provide the court with enough impetus to take a
much more lenient view in terms of punishment.

5
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gaurav Bhatia CA No. 289/2017

 As he committed the offence under immense pressure of financial loss and rage and anger
towards Mr. Pankaj Singh, as he had fired him from job and should be given a smaller
sentence as there was no hurt caused to the child imprisonment for life will be too
heinous
 It was submitted that it was a crime of passion thus there should be lenient view should
be taken and scope should be left for reformation of convict

Thus,the counsel for the appellant requests the Hon’ble court to reduce the sentence from Life
imprisonment to 10 years of simple imprisonment.

6
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gaurav Bhatia CA No. 289/2017