CHANDUBHAI DEVJIBHAI BHANUSALI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant - convict has preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad Camp on 14. 6. 2002 in Sessions Case No. 116 of 1999 convicting him for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 498a of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default thereof to undergo RI for one month for the offence punishable under section 498a of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that deceased Kasturiben @ Kantaben was married to the accused on 15. 5. 1998 and they were residing at Vapi. On 13. 4. 1999, at about 11:00 p. m. , the father-in-law Devjibhai, brother-in-law Vasantbhai and sister-in-law Daxaben came to her house and demanded money and there was altercation. Vasantbhai and Daxaben caught hold of Kasturiben @ Kantaben and her husband Chandubhai poured kerosene and set her on fire. After the incident, Kasturiben @ Kantaben was taken to the hospital for treatment, where she succumbed to the injuries.

(3.) ON the basis of the first information report lodged by Maheshbhai Vishrambhai - brother of the deceased, offence was registered and investigation was started. At the end of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 302, 498a and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As the offence was triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 116 of 1999. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge Exh-4 for the aforesaid offence against the accused. The accused denied having committed the offence and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused were explained to him. The accused in his further statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stated that the deceased committed suicide and she had 99% burn injuries and as her fingers were burnt, thumb impression could not be taken on dying declaration and there was no endorsement of the doctor on the dying declaration that the deceased was in fit state of mind to give dying declaration and therefore, the accused have been falsely implicated. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the accused, the Court convicted the accused for the offences mentioned hereinabove, but acquitted other accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the convict has preferred this appeal.