RAMESHCHANDRA G SONI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants original accused nos. 1 and 4 of Sessions Case No. 58 of 1987 of City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad, have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional City Sessions Judge, 14th Court, Ahmedabad dated 17/6/1988. The learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 306 and has sentenced appellant no. 1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00. He has also convicted appellants for offence u/S. 498 A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has sentenced appellant no. 1 to suffer RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default to suffer further RI for a period of three months on each count. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The learned trial Judge has granted appellant no. 2 benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and ordered her to be released on probation on furnishing personal bond of Rs.5,000/with surety of like amount for a period of two years from the date of execution of the bond. Alongwith the appellants, original accused no. 2 and no. 3 were tried in the said case. The appellants as well as original accused no. 2 and 3 faced charge of committing ofence u/Ss. 302, 306 and 498 of the IPC. They have been acquitted of offence u/S. 302 of the IPC. Accused nos. 2 and 3 have also been acquitted of offence u/Ss. 306 and 498A of the IPC. The State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge in favour of the accused.

(2.) Before the hearing of the appeal commenced, Mr. Jayant M. Panchal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants made a statement that appellant no. 2 Jamnaben Gordhanbhai Soni has expired on 6/7/1995 and in support of the said statement, he has produced death certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. The Ld. APP Mr. N.D. Gohil does not dispute the statement and he has no objection to the said certificate being taken on record. In view of this, the appeal of appellant no. 2 abates by virtue of provisions of section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

(3.) The relevant facts leading to the prosecution of the accused stated in nutshell are as follows :- The complainant of this case Ramdev Roduji had five daughters, namely (1) Bhagvatiben, (2) Ramila, (3) Santosh, (4) Kamla and (5) Premila. He also had three sons, namely (1) Ramesh, (2) Gopal and (3) Vishnu and wife named Fulaben. Ramdev's daughters Premila and Santosh were married to present appellant no. 1 and original accused no. 2 Brijesh respectively. Their marriage had taken place during their childhood. Two years after the marriage, Premila was sent to her matrimonial home which is situated in Virnagar society, Bungalow no.1. During the course of marriage life Premila gave birth to son Navin aged 5 years and daughter Bharati aged 2 years at the time of incident. Santosh was still staying with the parents as she was quite young and had not attained the age of majority at the time of incident. According to the prosecution, initially Premila was treated well in the family, but gradually the family of the accused became finanfially well off and they started causing harassment to Premila as the complainant's financial position was not sound and the accused thought that if they could get rid off Premila, appellant no.1 could marry to a girl from a wealthy family. At the time of incident Premila had already been staying with her husband for the last about 8 years. According to the prosecution about 2 months' prior to the present incident, original accused no. 2 wrote a letter to complainant Ramdev informing him that he was not willing to keep Santosh as his wife because he was graduate, whereas Santosh was uneducated. He also informed his father-in-law i.e. Ramdev that since their marriage had taken place in the childhood, it was not a valid marriage in the eye of law and he should get Santosh married somewhere else. Accused no. 2 also stated in the letter that he wanted to marry a girl who was quite educated. According to the prosecution on the day of Raksha Bandhan, Premila did not visit the house of her parents as she was not allowed by her husband and deceased appellant no.2 to go there. Hence, Ramesh went to the hosue of Premila and asked her as to why she did not go to the parents' house on Raksha Bandhan day and he was informed that appellants nos. 1 and 2 did not permit her to go there. Ramesh thereafter returned home and told his father about this. According to the prosecution on 2/9/1986 early in the morning at 4.00 O'clock the police van came to the house of the complainant and the police informed complainant Ramdev that his daughter Premila had received burns. On receiving this information, the complainant alongwith his wife and son Ramesh went to the house of Premila and saw Premila and her daughter Bharati lying dead on the cot in a room. They had died on account of the burns. They also came to know that Navin, son of appellant no. 1 and Premila, had received extensive burns and he was removed to the hospital for treatment. Later in the day, the police recorded complaint of Ramdev and in the complaint he expressed his suspicion that the accused might have killed Premila and the children. He also stated in the complaint that accused caused harassment to Premila as she was poor and uneducated. The police on receiving the information, registered offence under sections 302 and 498 A of the IPC against the accused and arrested them. After usual investigation was carried out, the police submitted charge-sheet against all the accused for alleged commission of offences u/Ss. 302, 498A and 114 of the IPC. At the trial, initially the accused were charged for committing offence u/S. 302 read with section 34 of the IPC as well as for offence u/S. 498A of the IPC vide charge at Exh. 3. However, the same subsequently came to be amended in view of order at Exh. 12 passed by the Ld. trial Judge and charge of offence u/S. 306 of the IPC was added in the alternative. The accused pleaded no guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the defence of the accused was that of general denial. At the end of the trial, the Ld. trial Judge as stated above, found only appellants nos. 1 and 2 guilty of committing offence u/S. 306, 498 A read with section 34 of the IPC.