ABEDALI JAMINALI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code'), is directed against the judgment and order dated 11/01/2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 52 of 1997, whereby, the appellant herein - original accused came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three years and a fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further RI for fifteen days, whereas, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, to undergo RI for five years and a fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further RI for one month.

(2.) Facts in nutshell of the prosecution case are that on 01/06/1996, Khurshidbanu, the deceased wife of the appellant herein - original accused namely Abedali Jaminali, gave a complaint to Vatva police, Ahmedabad mainly alleging that her marriage took place with the accused before eight years and she was residing with her husband, three children born out of the said wedlock and the motherinlaw and the brotherinlaw. Her husband, the appellant herein - original accused was running a pan galla, which he had given on rent for about last one year to the date of incident. Her motherinlaw was begging and helping in the house. When her marriage took place, the accused was without any work and whenever, he needed money, he used to give physical and mental torture to the deceased , which, she was tolerating for all these years after marriage. On 26/05/1996, the appellant - accused had to go Ajmer for praying for which, he had sold out the wrist watch and after returning home, he told his wife, the deceased, that since he had sold the wrist watch, bring Rs.900/ from your father as he wanted to purchase the new one. The accused also allegedly threatening her that he would not allow her to go to her parental house and would cutoff the relations with them and by saying so, he used to beat her.

(3.) Heard Mr. M. M. Tirmizi, the learned advocate for the appellant - original accused and Mr. K. L. Pandya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.