FATHESINH MAGANBHAI BARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS these two appeals arise from common judgment, they are being disposed of together. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1194 of 2006 was accused No.2 whereas appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1195 of 2006 was accused No.1 before the trial court. By the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2006 delivered by learned Sessions Judge, Dahod in Sessions Case No.26 of 2006, both the accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for sake of brevity), and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/ -, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further one month. They were convicted for offence under section 498 -A read with section 114, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.200/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for further seven days. For the offence punishable under section 201 IPC, they were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further fifteen days. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was directed that they may be given set off for the period spent in jail as undertrial prisoners.

(2.) THE prosecution case was launched with a complaint (Exh.11) lodged on 19.10.2005 by Babubhai Mansukhbhai Koli, father of the deceased, residing at village Antela. In that complaint filed before Limkheda Police Station it was stated that the complainant was informed by one Selot Kansinhbhai, rector of boys hostel about the death of her daughter at around 5.30 p.m. when the complainant had gone towards bus stand in the town. Kansinhbhai told him that his son -in -law Ganpatbhai had telephoned to him from village Chatki that complainant's daughter had fallen down in the well. Thereupon complainant went to his house and informed his wife, his father, his sister -in -law and nephew about the incident, and they all went to village Chatki by hiring a jeep. Reaching there they saw dead body of Sushila lying near a well. Other people had gathered at the place. Son -in -law Ganpatbhai however was at his residence, therefore, the complainant and the family members reached at his residence. When Ganpatbhai was asked about the incident, he said that Sushila had gone to fetch water from the well, wherein she fell down and died due to drowning. In the complaint it was stated that on the body of the deceased there were no marks of any injury or bleeding and the clothes put on by her were wet. The deceased Sushila had married three years back and was staying with her husband, along with the father -in -law and mother -in -law, and had a boy child aged one and half month.

(3.) IT appears that the offence alleged in that complaint (Exh.11) was not registered as First Information Report on the day when it was lodged, but the officer at the Police Station recorded only an entry about accidental death on the basis of declaration in the complaint which was at about 23.45 hours on 19.10.2005. The inquest panchnama of the body was done on the next day i.e. 20.10.2005 at around 09.15 10.00 a.m. The inquest panchnama (Exh.13) would show that the inquest was performed at C.H.C. Hospital, Limkheda, and it was mentioned that the body was kept in morgue of the hospital.