MOHAMMED YUSUF ALLAUDDIN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeals assail the judgment and order dated 29/10/2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 384 of 2000, whereby, while acquitting all the accused from the charge of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the Penal Code ') and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, they were held to be guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of the Penal Code and the original accused Nos. 1 to 4 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 03 years and a fine of Rs.1,000.00 each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 03 months, whereas, the original accused Nos. 5 and 6 were sentenced to undergo RI for one year and a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further RI for one month. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 974 of 2002 has been filed by the appellants - original accused against conviction, whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2003 has been filed by the appellant - State against original accused Nos. 5 and 6 for enhancement of sentence.

(2.) Facts in nutshell of the prosecution case are that marriage of deceased Shababanu, the daughter of complainant, had been solemnized somewhere in the year 1996 with the original accused No. 3. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the brothers-in-law (Jeth and Diyar, respectively) of the deceased and accused Nos. 5 and 6 are the parents- in-law of the deceased. In the marriage span of about three years, the accused used to demand dowry from the deceased to start the business of bakery and for that, they used to inflict physical and mental torture upon the deceased and thereby, subjected the deceased with immense cruelty. When it became unbearable, on the unfortunate day of the incident, the deceased committed suicide by setting herself ablaze by pouring kerosene. Thus, the accused committed the alleged offence for which, complaint came to be lodged against them.

(3.) Heard, Mr. J. M. Panchal, the learned advocate for the original accused and Mr. K. L. Pandya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.