NATHAJI CHHAGANJI THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25th july,2000 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 88 of 1997. All three appellants have been held guilty of charge for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and also under Section 498-A of the Indian penal Code. Accused have been imposed life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of rs. 100/- each, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for one month has been awarded. It is also ordered that the appellants have to undergone rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Original accused Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife and father and mother of accused no. 3 Lalji. As per the case of prosecution, accused No. 3 Lalji is the husband of the deceased Vinuben @ Pinki, who died on account of burn injuries sustained by her in the incident. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is reflected in the charge at Exh-2.

(2.) IT is alleged that on 2nd January, 1997, accused No. 3 husband of deceased Vinuben was residing with the deceased on the first floor of the house and on the ground floor, appellant Nos. l and 2, with their another son and his wife were residing. All three accused in the short marriage span of approximately 1 1/2 years, were harassing the deceased and she was subjected to mental and physical torture and cruelty. On the date of incident, i. e. on 2nd january,1997, at about 7:00 p. m. the accused persons with an intention to kill vinuben @ Pinki caused burn injuries to her in the residential house located at village: Bhat, Taluka: Dascroi, District: ahmedabad. Accused Nos. l and 2 caught hold of the deceased Vinuben and accused no. 3 thereafter poured kerosene upon her and ignited the fire. The accused were sharing common intention to kill Vinuben and, thereafter, they left their home immediately after the incident. Say of the prosecution is that accused No. 3 also sustained burn injuries in the incident and this shows active participation of accused no. 3 in the incident. Father, mother and family members of the deceased residing at ahmedabad, when they reached at Village: bhat, at that time, injured Vinuben was lying on the floor as she had already come down the staircase and on inquiry from vinuben, complainant father found that her daughter Vinuben has been ablazed with fire by all the three accused at about 7 p. m. In jeep car, Vinuben was shifted to Vadilal sarabhai Hospital at Ahmedabad. She was admitted in the Hospital. Doctor has recorded case history given by her. It is alleged that the deceased had said to the doctor about the whole incident and active participation of the accused persons in the crime committed against her. It is also the case of the prosecution that necessary arrangement to see that dying declaration of the injured is recorded by the Executive magistrate was made. Executive Magistrate, in turn, rushed to the Hospital and deceased vinuben has stated as to how she has sustained the burn injuries. Immediately after the incident, police has drawn panchnama of scene of offence, after recording FIR of the complainant father on 3rd January,1997 at about 2:00 p. m. i. e. 14 hours. After investigation, police found that there is a case against all three accused and, therefore, charge-sheeted all the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 498-A of the indian Penal Code.

(3.) LEARNED Trial Judge, after conclusion of the trial found that the prosecution has satisfactorily established the charge against all the three accused and held all the three accused guilty as mentioned hereinabove. The appeal being filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court is suppose to scan the judgment and order under challenge and if be needed, appreciate the entire set of evidence led by the prosecution and, therefore, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants mr. Vijay H. Patel appearing for HL Patel advocates and Ms. D. S. Pandit for the State of Gujarat. Both the counsels have taken us to oral evidence led by the prosecution and order under challenge. Relevant part of the evidence is read over to us.