CHAVDA GHANSHYAMJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the four appellants are the original accused of Sessions Case No. 285 of 1992, who have been held guilty for the charge of offence punishable under Section 498 (A), 306 of Indian Penal Code and all the four appellants (Original accused) are sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for each of the accused and in the event of nonpayment of fine, they are asked to undergo S. I. for one month. The appellants have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge on various grounds as mentioned in para 5 of the memo of the appeal preferred by the present appellants under Section 374 read with 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) THE appellant No. 1 was the husband of the deceased Jashuba, appellant No. 2 was the brother-in-law (elder brother of the appellant No. 1), appellant No. 3 and 4 are parents of appellant No. 1 and were father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Jashuba.

(3.) YESTERDAY, when the matter was listed for final hearing, Mr. Barot, learned advocate had taken me through the judgment and order under challenge as well as relevant portion of the evidence discussed by the learned trial Judge of one important witness examined by the prosecution vide Exhibit 22 i. e. P. W. 5 " Sendhaji. He had also taken me through the relevant documentary evidence led by the prosecution. As the important witnesses i. e. original complainant " Maganji and family members of the deceased Jashuba, have not supported the case of the prosecution, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge is erroneous finding, was the backbone of the submissions made by Mr. Barot, learned advocate. As the original Record and Proceedings were not before the Court and only paper book was available, Ms. Pandit, learned A. P. P. has prayed for time, so that she can go through the deposition of P. W. 5 " Sendhaji, especially in the background on fact stated by him in para 4 of his deposition because it was argued that this witness " Sendhaji ought not to have been believed as reliable witness. I have, therefore, heard Ms. Pandit, learned A. P. P.