SAMIRKHAN @ KALU YUSUFKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 22/4/2015 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions case no. 452 of 2013, by which the appellant-original accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.500.00, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the first informant Najmabanu Samirkhan Pathan who lodged the complaint before Khokhra police station at 1.00 p.m. On 12/8/2013 for the offence punishable under Ss. 498-A, 307, 323 and 294-B of the Indian Penal Code which came to be registered as Cr. No. 167 of 2013. It was alleged in the complaint that she had married to the original accused Samirkhan prior to almost 14 years and under one pretext or the other, from time to time, husband Samirkhan was giving mental as well as physical torture to the complainant and it was at the relevant time reported to Khokhra police station. It was also asserted in the complaint that since several months, the original accused Samirkhan i.e. husband of the complainant was not doing any work and on the fateful day i.e. 11/8/2013 at about 9.00 p.m., the accused husband came to the house. At that time, the complainant demanded money so as to run the house and home affairs to go on. Upon such demand of money, the husband abused as well as beaten the complainant and in aggression, the accused husband poured kerosene on the complainant and set her on fire by match stick which resulted into burn injuries practically all over the body of the complainant. Since sister-in-law was residing in the nearby vicinity, she took the complainant to V.S. hospital in 108 ambulance van and she was admitted to burns ward in V.S.Hospital. It was categorically stated by the complainant that solely with a view to kill the complainant, the accused husband poured kerosene and set her to fire. Based upon this incident, the complaint came to be registered with Khokhra police station as stated above. 2.1 The complaint came to be investigated by the concerned Police Inspector Vasudevbhai J.Desai, p.w.-4 at exh. 26 who recorded necessary statements of witnesses, who also called panch witnesses and also made panchnama of the place of offence at exh.11, recorded statements of Madinaben Mohmed Muslim Abdul Latif-mother of the deceased- complainant and also collected necessary evidence in the form of burnt clothes from the place of incident and took necessary steps in furtherance of the investigation. It is borne out from the evidence that on 1/9/2013, one Mr. V.K.Zala, Police Inspector handed over ongoing investigation to PSI Mr. Javed Gulambir Shaikh-pw.5 at exh.3 who took charge of the investigation. During course of investigation. PM report as well as FSL report came to be received which came to be made part of the record and after collecting necessary evidence, draft charge-sheet was placed before the officer concerned and later on charge-sheet came to be submitted before learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad and criminal case was registered as Criminal case no.1565 of 2013. 2.2 It appears from the record that since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Sec. 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, committed the case to the learned City Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad on 28/11/2013 which was registered as Sessions case no.452 of 2013.

(3.) During the course of adjudication of the sessions case, on 13/10/2014, vide exh. 5 charge came to be framed against the original accused for the offence punishable under Ss. 498-A, 302, 323 and 294-B of the Indian Penal Code and plea of the original accused came to be recorded vide exh. 6 on 13/10/2014. The accused having pleaded not guilty, the prosecution proceeded further to establish the commission of the offence by leading evidence.