KARIMABEN AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.12.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli, Camp -Rajula in Sessions Case No. 47 of 2000, whereby both the accused were held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 200/ -. Since the accused were awarded punishment for offence under Sec. 302 of IPC, learned trial Judge has not awarded any separate sentence for offence punishable under Sec. 498(A) of IPC and only imposed fine of Rs. 100/ - each on the accused for this offence. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, both the accused have preferred present appeal before this Court.

(2.) The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under: -

(3.) Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the appellants -original accused has taken us through the evidence and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants. Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the accused No. 1 is 86 years old and the other accused is having very young children and considering the fact that there are serious discrepancies in different dying declarations, which are recorded at Amreli and Bhavnagar about the way in which the incident had happened, second dying declaration of the deceased cannot be taken into consideration. He has further contended that the scientific report, which is produced on record at Exh. 53, it is opined that the door of the room was sought to be opened after the deceased committed suicide and the accused have tried to help the deceased and in the process mother -in -law has received injuries. He also submitted that the sister -in -law of the deceased is also wrongly roped in as she was not present in the house and it is alleged that she ran away after the incident. He further submitted that the incident is of 1999 and more than 16 years have passed, therefore, considering the evidence, as aforesaid, benefit of doubt is required to be granted to the appellants, as there are different dying declarations which cannot be relied to convict the accused. He has also taken us through the evidence of hostile witnesses and contended that even the family members of the deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. He, therefore, prayed that this appeal may be allowed by setting aside the conviction of the accused persons.