SAFIMAHMAD IBRAHIM VORA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated llth August, 1989 passed in Sessions Case No. 227 of 1988 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District (Only a part of the Judgment approved for reporting is published.) Kheda at Nadiad. The appellant-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Secs. 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 200.00 in default rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Sec. 306 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 100.00, 15 days' rigorous imprisonment in default, for the offence under Sec. 498A of the I.P.C.

(2.) Briefly according to the prosecution case Shahida and accused Safi Mahmad Ibrahim had more than 15 years of married life and had a son of about 10 years. It is alleged that the accused who was previously serving with Vallabh Glass Factory at Vidyanagar, was relieved from his job about 2 to 3 years before the date of the incident and was rendered jobless and had gone astray. As per the evidence of parents of Shahida, namely (i) Ibrahimbhai Kasambhai (P. W. 2 - Exh. 21) and (ii) Hajraben Sabankarim (P. W. 3 - Exh. 22) Shahida was ill-treated by the appellant-accused. According to them so long as the appellant-accused had the job, the relations between him and Shahida were quite good, however, after the appellantaccused was rendered jobless he started frequently demanding money from Shahida, whereupon Shahida used to visit her parents' house and to inform them about demand of money from her husband. Thereupon the parents of Shahida were giving some money to her. Shahida also informed them that whenever she refused to give money, the appellant-accused was quarrelling with her. About 8 months before the incident, Shahida had gone to her parents' house and informed her parents that the quarrel was going on in the house and, therefore, she desired to stay with them. Shahida, therefore, stayed over at her parents house for about 2 to 3 months. Thereafter, the parents-in-law of Shahida had gone to the house of parents of Shahida and requested them to send Shahida, assuring them that no such quarrel would take place again. On said assurance Shahida returned to her matrimonial home. After her stay for a month at Bakrol, she went back to her parents' house and told her parents that she wanted to start a grocery shop and for that some provision should be made. Usmanbhai, her brother, gave her about Rs. 1500/- for opening the shop and Shahida after going to Bakrol opened the shop of miscellaneous grocery articles in the house where she was residing. The appellant-accused used to visit her at the interval of 2 to 3 days and after having his meals he was taking away the profit earned by Shahida. Some time thereafter the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 requested Shahida to go to some other house as they wanted to take the shop wherein Shahida was carrying on her small business. Shahida on taking the stand that she had opened the shop in her own house and that she would reside there only, the quarrel started and lasted for about 2 to 4 days. Thereafter the appellant-accused alongwith his brother and sister (original accused Nos, 2 and 3) started beating Shahida. It is also alleged in the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses that when Ibrahim Kasambhai (P. W. 2) reached Kanjari at about 3-00 p.m. on the date of the incident, i. e., 28/06/1988 his son Mahmand told him that Shahida had been burnt. On hearing this, the witness went to the Government hospital at Anand where the dead-body of the Shahida was lying with the burns all over her body. His complaint came to be recorded in the hospital. On the basis of the complaint, the accused came to be arrested and after the investigation was over they came to be charge-sheeted for the offences under Secs. 302, 498A and 114 of I.P.C. before the Sessions Court at Nadiad.

(3.) Originally the charge under Secs. 498A, 114 and 302 of I.P.C. was framed on 3/04/1989 at Exh. 3. Plea of the accused persons came to be recorded as per Exh. 4. All the 3 accused including the appellantaccused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. It appears from the question No. 70 put up by the trial Court under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant-accused stated that on 28/06/1988 at about 10-30 a.m. the appellant-accused No. 1 had gone to the Police Station and informed to P.S.I. Shri Rajput that his wife Shahida had committed suicide by sprinkling kerosene over her body. After the statements of the accused persons were recorded and after fully hearing the prosecution and the defence, the trial Court by order dated 10/08/1989 appearing at Exh. 55 framed additional alternative charge under Sec. 306 of the I.P.C. and the plea in respect thereof of the accused-persons including the appellant was recorded. Both the sides, namely, the prosecution and the defence opted not to recall any of the witnesses or to lead any further evidence.