ABHAY HARINANDAN OZA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri J. B. Pardiwala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri P. D. Bhate, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

(2.) THE appellant-orig. convict (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') has preferred present appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02nd September 2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad, in Sessions Case No. 488 of 2002 (Old No. 171 of 2001), whereby the learned trial Judge has held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in defualt to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and so far as the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for seven months.

(3.) SHRI J. B. Pardiwala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has taken me through the various grounds of challenge mentioned in the memo of the appeal as well as the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge. The R and P is before the Court and from the paper-book I have been taken through the depositions of 8 witnesses recorded during the course of trial and also through other 13 documents seen and evaluated by the learned trial Judge referred to in paragraph no. 6 of the judgment and order under challenge. According to Shri Pardiwala, the finding of the learned trial Judge holding the appellant guilty of the charge of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is erroneous because the learned trial Judge has erred in appreciating the scheme of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence in this regard has not been appreciated correctly and, therefore, the conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned trial Judge may be quashed and set aside and the appellant may be acquitted from the said charge. During the course of arguments, Shri Pardiwala has fairly accepted that in view of the nature of evidence led by the prosecution, mainly the oral version of the complainant, certain documents, including the letters written by the victim-deceased at her parental home and also to her friend, and certain remarks made by the doctor who performed the autopsy, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge for the offence punishable under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code is not found assailable and, therefore, present appeal may be considered as an appeal against the judgment and order of conviction recorded qua the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code only. Shri Pardiwala has instructions not to press the present appeal qua the offence punishable under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code.