SUNITABEN SHIVNAND RAO Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2012 is directed against the conviction made by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 302 of 2011, whereby the learned Sessions Judge imposed sentence of five years' Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further two months' S.I., for default in payment of fine, whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 642 of 2012 has been preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence imposed upon the accused after the charge under Section 304 Part-I of IPC was proved. For the sake of convenience, as there are Cross Appeals, the convict shall be referred to as 'accused'/'appellant - accused'.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that as per the prosecution case, the deceased Manoj @ Mukesh, son of Ravjibhai had dispute with the mother of his wife, Arunaben and there were police cases between them. On 14.2.2010 at about 7.30 to 8 O'Clock, when the deceased was in sleeping condition on the cot, his mother-in-law had come and he started burning and when he got up, he found that his mother-in-law had a tumbler in her hand and she was coming out of the room and he found that something was sprinkled and fire was set. As the bedding had started burning and he was also burnt, he got up and had jumped into the water tank. As a result thereof, the fire was extinguished. Thereafter 108 Van had come and he was taken to the hospital. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Case No.302 of 2011. The charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 307 of IPC. The trial was conducted by the learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 11 witnesses and prosecution also produced documentary evidences, the details of which are mentioned in paragraph 5 of the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the appellant - accused denied the evidence against her and in her further statement, she had stated that she has been falsely implicated in the case.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution as well as the defence and ultimately found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and the learned Sessions Judge found that though the charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 307, no separate order was required to be passed. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the defence and prosecution for sentence and imposed sentence of five years' S.I., with the fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further two months' S.I., for default in payment of fine. Against the conviction made by the learned Sessions Judge as recorded herein above, the accused has preferred appeal, whereas the State has preferred appeal for enhancement of the sentence.