RUPALSINH PARBATSINH RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Appeal is against the judgment and order rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 6, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, in Sessions Case No. 50 of 2005, whereby the learned Judge recorded conviction of the appellant herein, who was original accused No. 1 in the aforesaid Sessions Case, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the appellant accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 250/ -, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of two months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 250/ - in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of two months for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by virtue of the impugned judgment and order dated 6th September, 2005. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in nutshell is that the incident occurred on 23.4.2005 at 10'O in th morning in the house of the appellant accused, situated at village Bhatia, Taluka Talod, District' Sabarkantha. Deceased Sangitaben married to the appellant prior to about two and half years from the date of the incident. It is alleged that Sangitaben was subjected to physical and mental torture by the appellant as well as co - accused Vajiben Parbatsinh Lalsinh Rathod, the mother of the appellant as well as mother -in -law of deceased Sangitaben. About the incident, it is alleged that, the appellant poured kerosene on Sangitaben and abalzed her by match stick, and in the said act, original accused No. 2 Vajiben aided and abetted the appellant. Sangita was initially shifted to Primary Health Centre, Talod and thereafter she was shifted to the private Nursing Home of PW -2 Dr. Jagdishkumar Devchandbhai Prajapati at Gandhinagar. During the course of her treatment, Sangitaben succumbed to the injuries and died on 9.5.2005. One Sendhaji Shanai Thakore, father of the deceased Sangitaben, lodged the FIR regarding the incident against the appellant - accused as well as co -accused Vajiben before PSI, Talod Police Station and the FIR was registered and investigation was commenced. The Executive Magistrate recorded Dying Declaration ('DD' for short) of the deceased. The Investigating Police Officer recorded statements of material witnesses and collected the required muddamal. After completion of the police investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Prantij. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, which was registered as Sessions Case No. 50 of 2005.

(3.) THE learned Trial Court framed the charge against the appellant herein as well as co -accused Vajiben at Exhibit -6, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and tendered required documentary evidence before the Trial Court. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the learned Trial Judge recorded further statements of both the accused including the appellant -accused as contemplated under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the appellant accused denied generally all the incriminating circumstances put to him by the Trial Court and submitted that at the time of the incident, his wife deceased Sangita was preparing food and abruptly there was busting of stove and she caught fire. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record and considering the statements made on behalf of both the sides, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the appellant accused and recorded the conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A of the IPC as well as under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and awarded the sentence, as referred to here -in -above in this judgment. However, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that so far as co -accused No. 2 Vajiben Parbatsinh Lalsinh Rathod was concerned, there was no sufficient evidence to record her conviction and the learned Trial Judge recorded acquittal of original accused No. 2 Vajiben. It is submitted that the State did not challenge the acquittal of original accused No. 2 Vajiben Parbatsinh Lalsinh Rathod by preferring any Appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code.