ASHISH BHUPENDRABHAI GANDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Secs. 304-B, 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1993 vide the judgment of conviction and sentence dated November 9, 1993. against the order of conviction and sentence passed by City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. He has been sentenced to the R. I. for 7 years and to a fine of Rs. 200.00 in default to the further R. I. of 4 months and to the R. I. for six months and to a fine of Rs. 500 in default to a further R. I. for one month and to the R. I. for one year and to a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to the R. I. for one month respectively. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The said judgment of conviction and sentence has been brought in challenge by the appellant-accused in the present criminal appeal before me.

(2.) Deceased-Mamta happened to be the daughter of Navinchandra Parikh, P. W. 2, Exh. The betrothal of Mamta with the appellant-accused, Ashish Gandhi came to made on December 8, 1991. The marriage had taken place in Ahmedabad on February 20, 1992. Mamta had stayed in Ahmedabad at her matrimonial house from February 20, 1992, to May 15, 1992. During this period of two months and 25 days, according to the case of the prosecution, Mamta was not happy in the matrimomial house. She goes to Delhi on May 15, 1992, in company of her relation and stays at the parental house upto June 5, 1992. On the said date she leaves Delhi for Ahmedabad and reverts back to the matrimonial house. On June 22, 1992, the appellant-accused had sent a letter to the parents of Mamta saying in brief that they should rush down to Ahmedabad immediately and they should not even try to contact anybody at Ahmedabad on telephone. The parents had got a ticket booked to rush down to Ahmedabad by train. Anyhow, the above said proposed journey was postponed. According to the case of the prosecution, meanwhile, Mamta had sent one letter dated June 26, 1992, to her parents. It should be noticed that this letter does not come as evidence by the prosecuting agency. On July 3, 1992, the parents of Mamta had received a telephonic message that Mamta has committed suicide and therefore, they should rush down to Ahmedabad. Accordingly, they reached Ahmedabad by air. The First Information Report came to be lodged at a belated stage, on July 7, 1992. The offences came to be registered not only against the accused but against his mother also. The accused persons had pleaded not guilty to the charges for the alleged commission of the above said offences. The learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the mother, accused No. 2, was required to be acquitted but, so far as appellant-accused is concerned, the said offences are duly established. This view of the learned Sessions Judge has resulted in the judgment of conviction and sentence as stated above.

(3.) The learned Counsel Mr. Ashok Shah who appears on behalf of the appellant urges that if the evidence is read in juxtaposition to the ingredients of the offences for which the appellant-accused stood charged and for which ultimately he has been convicted, it becomes apparent that the evidence falls short and therefore, the appellant-accused could not have been convicted.