DHULAJI BHIKHAJI KHANT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is preferred by the accused of Sessions Case No.67/1994 of the Court of Sessions, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar against the judgment dated 2 1/12/1994 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicting the present appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment of life and for fine of Rs.500=00 and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months.

(2.) The facts reveal that the complainant of this case Babuji Manaji Parmar is a resident of Village Katwad. His sister Tejalben was married to the present appellant 10 years prior to the date of the incident. Out of this marriage Tejalben had two children - a boy named Jasuji and a girl named Jashoda aged 10 years and 7 years respectively. The married life of Tejalben and the present appellant was not going well and whenever Tejalben used to visit her parental house, she was complaining that her husband, the present appellant was suspicious about her character and was beating her. However, in the interest of married life of Tejalben her relatives persuaded her to stay at her in-laws. In the month of January previous to the incident Tejalben visited her parents and again complained that she had been beaten and tortured by the appellant. On 14th February, 1994 at about 10:00 p.m. the complainant was informed that Tejalben was burnt and was kept at Village Kadoli. After obtaining an Ambulance Van from Himmatnagar Town Babuji went to Village Kadoli and noticed that Tejalben was burnt all over her body and was fully conscious. She conveyed to Babuji that the appellant had beaten her and thereafter pouring kerosene upon her and lighting fire he closed the door and ran away. Thereafter Babuji shifted Tejalben at Himmatnagar Civil Hospital and also lodged complaint at Himmatnagar Town Police Station. Tejalben, before Dr.Bhupendra who treated her, at the first instance made a statement in the form of case history that she was burnt by her husband following a physical assault. Dying Declaration of the deceased was also recorded by the Executive Magistrate PW 6 Pravinkumar Hirabhai. During the treatment Tejalben died on that night at 22:30 hours. The complaint was registered at Himmatnagar Town Police Station. As per the information given by Dr.Bhupendra Shah an entry regarding the incident was made in the register at 13:10 hours by PSO Balwantsinh vide Entry No.27/1994. For inquiry of this entry Police Constable Jagdevsinh Vakhatsinh PW 8 also recorded the statement of the deceased at the Civil Hospital. The statement is at Ex.24. Initially, the offence against the accused was registered under Sections 307 and 498A of the Penal Code but, on the death of Tejalben, the same was converted in Section 302 and 498A of the Penal Code. The investigation was handed over thereafter to Pratapsinh Udesinh, the then Police Inspector, Himmatnagar Town Police Station. He arrested the accused on 19th February, 1994. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Himmatnagar for the offence under Sections 302 and 498A of the Penal Code against the accused and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Vide Ex.3, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Himmatnagar framed charge against the accused but he pleaded not guilty to the charge.

(3.) After trial and hearing both the parties and recording the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide judgment and order dated 2 1/12/1994 the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that charge against the accused under Section 498A was not proved by the prosecution while prosecution established the charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code against the accused. After hearing the accused on the quantum of the punishment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as above said, awarded life imprisonment to the accused for the offence proved under Section 302 alongwith the fine of Rs.500=00. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied this Appeal is preferred by the appellant.