LAWS(GJH)-2011-4-249

DASHRATHBHAI KESHAVBHAI VANKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On April 18, 2011
Dashrathbhai Keshavbhai Vankar and Anr. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellants have preferred this Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and senlcnce dated 12.10.2000 passed by the learned 3rd Joint District Judge (Sessions Judge), Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 131 of 1999, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellants under Sections 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. For the offences aforesaid learned Special Judge was pleased to order the appellant No. 1 to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000, in default, to further undergo S.I. for three months and the appellant No. 2 was ordered to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 1000, in default, to undergo further S.I. for three months. The appellant No. 1 was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in default of payment of fine, the appellant No. 1 was ordered to undergo further S.I. for six months. The appellant No. 2 was ordered to be exempted from paying fine considering her age about 70 years. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:

(2.) The allegations levelled against the accused are that on 29.7.1997, the deceased Ramilaben poured kerosene on herself and committed suicide and expired. As alleged in the complaint, the accused persons frequently made demand of dowry from the deceased and they caused mental and physical harassment to the deceased. Therefore, complaint against the accused persons lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) Thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded, panchnama was drawn and accused were arrested. Charge-sheets was filed and as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Session, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 131 of 1999.