CHHAGANBHAI LIMJIBHAI PALAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants - original accused were convicted of the offence punishable under section 302 and 114 of Indian Penal Code by impugned judgement and order dated 27.08.2010 in Sessions Case No. 148 of 2009 by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal, Godhra. The appellants were inter alia sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code whereas no separate sentence was awarded under section 114 of Indian Penal Code. It is required to be noted that this Court on 18.10.2013 had passed the following order:

(2.) HOWEVER , it appears that the aforesaid observation regarding the age of accused No. 2 has not been taken very seriously by the accused as no such contention was raised before the learned trial judge nor is it now pursued and therefore the same is given up. Accused No. 2 - Pankaj Chhaganbhai Palas is absconding as per the jail report produced before this Court and as per the settled provisions of law, we have taken up these appeals for final disposal at the behest of the learned advocates for the appellants. Accused No. 1 is the first husband of the deceased and accused No. 2 is the son of accused No. 1. As per the prosecution case, on 05.06.2009, at around 03.00 am while the deceased was sleeping on a cot outside her house along with her three year old daughter, she felt something cool poured on her. When she woke up, she saw that accused persons were present there and they had poured petrol on her. It is the prosecution case that accused No. 1 immediately lighted a matchstick and set her ablaze. The deceased started shouting and therefore her husband who was asleep nearby woke up and immediately poured water on her. Thereafter the deceased was taken to hospital where she succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment.

(3.) MR . Madansingh Barod and Mr. Pratik Barot for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. They submitted that there are serious discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses and therefore the appellants deserve to be granted benefit of doubt.