MAHENDRA SHAMALDAS SONI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence pronounced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 165 of 1985 dated 31-12- 1985, convicting the appellant-accused for the commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to the R.I. for life.

(2.) The appellant-accused, Mahendra Soni, along with three accused persons, namely, his father, mother and younger brother stood charged for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. read with Sec. 34 or Sec. 114 of the I P.C. Alternatively, the accused persons also stood charged for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 498A of the I.P.C. Lastly, the accused persons stood charged for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sec. 201 of I.P.C. on the accusation that with the intention of causing the evidence of murder to disappear, certain false information was supplied by them.

(3.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that victim Smt. Saroj Soni, happened to be the daughter of Himmatlal Soni, P.W. No. 1, Exh. 16, and she had married the appellant-accused before about 4 to 5 years of the incident which had allegedly taken place on 15/03/1985. Out of the above said wedlock, the deceased, Smt. Sarojben Soni, had two sons at the relevant time. The medical evidence on record, which is not relevant for the purpose of the decision of the present appeal, would go to show that before some months of the incident, Smt. Saroj Soni had conceived and later on she had undergone the medical termination at the hands of the Gynaecologist, namely. Dr. Lalitaben Patel. It appears that the termination was not complete and successful and that a portion of concepted organism had remained in the utorus which, later on had a development as the embryo once again. According to the prosecution, there was a social occasion connecting the original accused No. 4, Rajendra Shamaldas Soni, and therefore, Himmatlal Soni, his wife-the deceased-and the accused persons were required to go to Jamnagar. Later on, they had returned upto Rajkot and had stayed there for some time. According to the case of the prosecution, later on, the deceased Smt. Sarojben Soni had left Rajkot for Ahmedabad in the company of accused No. 1 on the previous day, i.e., on 14/03/1985, and that during the night between 14/03/1985, and 15/03/1985, the deceased and the accused persons were in the same premises, namely. Block No. 9, situated at Sterling Centre at Khanpur within the city of Ahmedabad. During the early morning hours, it appears that, a general physician, residing in the vicinity, was contacted with a view to provide some medical assistance to the deceased, but the Doctor had refused the services on the ground that possibly it might be a medicolegal case. Later on, the deceased was removed to V. S. Hospital at about 7-20 a.m. where, after examination, the medical expert had pronounced her to be dead at about 7-35 a.m. The father of the victim, Himmatlal, P.W. No. 1, was there in the hospital in company of his nephew, Ashok Soni, P.W. No. 5, Exh. 23, and at about 11-00 a.m., they had submitted one application to the police saying that the accused had died in suspicious and mysterious circumstances. It appears that the Post Mortem examination was carried out and later on, the Investigating Officer, P.W. No. 11, had lodged F.I.R, at Exh. 34 on the same day, ie., on 15/03/1985. It also appears from the record that the residents of the society where father-Himmatlal was staying had prepared a memorandum addressed to the Home Minister, State of Gujarat, in consultation with father- Himmatlal and later on the above said memorandum at Exh. 19, prepared on 16/03/1985, was forwarded to the Home Minister. At the conclusion of the trial, the four accused persons were charge-sheeted for the alleged commission of the above said offences. The prosecution evidence, which is purely circumstantial in nature, was considered by the learned Sessions Judge at the time of examining the question as to whether the prosecution was able to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons. Keeping in mind certain settled legal positions in respect of the case depending upon the circumstantial evidence and after appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has reached the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. against the appellant-accused. In view of this position, after finding him guilty for the offence of murder the learned Additional Sessions Judge has awarded the imprisonment for life to the appellant-accused who is the original accused No. 1. He has been acquitted of the other charges. It should also be pointed out that the remaining accused persons were also acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The abovesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, rendered by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, is under challenge before us in the present appeal.