RAMESHBHAI HIRABHAI DAMOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS all the appeals arise from the common judgement and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, they are being considered simultaneously.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that a complaint was filed on 24.5.2008 by Somiben (deceased), wife of Khatubhai Kalubhai (Exh.76), stating that when she was at her residence, Rameshbhai Hirabhai Damor (Accused No.1) and his wife Lalitaben (Accused No.2), Champaben (Accused No.3) wife of Hirabhai Damor and Divaben @ Diwaliben W/o Kankabhai Gemabhai Damor (Accused No.4), all the four came to her residence at about 2 O'3Clock and told the complainant about the quarrel for the entry of goats in the field and started abusing and she was caught hold of and Rameshbhai Hirabhai Damor (A -1) poured kerosene on her body to kill her and set fire with the match stick and she had started burning. At that time, she had shouted and then Ramilaben Rameshbhai, Kamlaben Malabhai and others had come and they sprinkled water and the fire was distinguished and her clothes were removed and thereafter Ambulance was called and she was taken to hospital. She was able to speak and was in completely conscious condition and treatment was going on and the complaint was filed. The police investigated into the complaint and ultimately, charge -sheet was filed against the four accused Rameshbhai Hirabhai Damor (Accused No.1) and his wife Lalitaben (Accused No.2), Champaben (Accused No.3) wife of Hirabhai Damor and Divaben @ Diwaliben W/o Kankabhai Gemabhai Damor (Accused No.4). The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.140/2008. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter framed the charge for the offences punishable under Section302, Section 452, Section 504 and Section 114 of IPC read with Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.

(3.) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 18 witnesses, the details of which are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 4 of the judgement. The prosecution also produced documentary evidence of various documents, the details of which are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 5 of the judgement. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the evidence against them. In the further statement, A -1, A -3 and A -4 stated that they are innocent and a false case is filed against them, whereas A -2 in her further statement while stating that she was innocent also stated that the husband of the deceased Khatubhai, in drunken position had tried to outrage the chastity by pulling sari and because of the dispute between the deceased and her husband, she has been wrongly involved in the case. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution and the defence and found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against A -1, A -2 and A -4 for the offences punishable under Section 302, Section 452, Section 504 and Section 114 of IPC, but benefit of doubt deserves to be given to A -3 and, therefore, acquitted A -3 for the charged offences and convicted A -1, A -2 and A -4. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution and the defence for sentence and then imposed sentence upon A -1, A -2 and A -4 as under: -