SATHWARA SURESHKUMAR GANGARAM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-accused-Sathwara Sureshkumar Gangaram has challenged in this appeal the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.4.1993 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.159 of 1992 whereby the learned Judge convicted him for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.200.00 in default to further undergo S.I. for 3 months. However, he has acquitted the accused for other offences punishable under Section 409A and 201 of IPC by giving benefit of doubt by that very order.

(2.) The appellant-accused along with other accused persons tried for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his wife deceased-Bhavna in the mid night hours at 2.00 p.m. of 19.3.1992. All the four accused were also tried for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. All the four accused were also tried for the offences punishable under Section 201 of IPC for destroying evidence.

(3.) As per the prosecution case the present appellant-accused belongs to `kadia'(mason) community. The complainant-Naranbhai Revabhai PW-2 Ex.41 is the father-in-law of the appellant-accused. He had two daughters; (1) Harshida and (2) deceased-Bhavna. Harshida got married to Satwara Ramesh Gangaram, accused No.2, real brother of the present appellant accused. He was harassing his wife-Harshida, therefore, finally they got separated with divorce on 6.12.1990. Deceased-Bhavna got married with the present appellant-accused. At that time she was school going, therefore, she was staying with her parents. After the divorce of Harshida, on the assurance of the present accused and other three accused, complainant-Naranbhai sent his second daughter-Bhavna at her in-laws place on the condition that she will not be harassed. However, present appellant-accused sold away the ornaments of his wife deceased-Bhavna and warned her not to disclose the same to her parents and to tell them that they were lost. However, she told her parents the truth. Therefore, she was subjected to mental as well as physical cruelty by the appellant-accused. Occasionally, he was taking away money also.