PRATAPBHAI MAGANBHAI SHIKARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these appeals arise out of the same offence, both were heard together and are decided by this common judgment and order. Criminal Appeal No.829 of 2012 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 9.4.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Sessions Case No.191 of 2011 against three accused, namely, Pratapbhai Maganbhai Shikari, Ratniben wife of Pratapbhai Maganbhai Shikari and Radhaben daughter of Pratapbhai Maganbhai Shikari, whereas Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2013 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.9.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Sessions Case No.115 of 2012 against two accused, namely, Saileshkumar Pratapsinh Shikari and Bhupatbhai Pratapbhai Shikari. In both the appeals the accused have been convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused have also been convicted for the offences punishable under section 143 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months' imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The accused have further been convicted for the offences punishable under section 120B read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused have also been convicted for the offences punishable under section 201 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) The facts stated briefly are that the informant Soniben Abhesingbhai Shikari lodged a first information report with the Godhra Taluka Police Station, inter alia, stating that five years prior thereto, at the time of Diwali, her brother-in-law Pratapbhai Maganbhai Shikari had told her that the land which had come to their share was not an ancestral property, but he had purchased the same, and hence, they should leave the land and vacate the house and in this manner quarreled with them and her brother-in-law, his wife Ratniben and their daughter Radhaben had assaulted her on the legs and head with an axe, in connection with which her husband had lodged a complaint. Thereafter, there were disputes between them and her brother-in-law and they did not have social relations and were not speaking to each other. About six months thereafter, there was a dispute in connection with which they (the informant) had set their house on fire in connection with which they had lodged complaint against them (the informant). Thereafter, two months prior thereto, Pratapbhai, his wife and children had quarreled with them and had thrown her son Dilipbhai in the well and had caused serious head injuries to her son Kishan with a dharia (scythe), in connection with which her son Dilipbhai had lodged a complaint and the accused were arrested and they were enlarged on bail. Her sons used to go for labour work outside. Her son Kishan had returned about four days ago and on Monday as his friend Rajubhai Badharbhai Bariya was to get married in their village, he had come home in the evening and her second son Mahesh had come home from work on the next day, that is, in the afternoon at about 4 o'clock and on that day, namely, two days prior thereto, in the evening at about 5 o'clock, her sons Kishan and Mahesh, both of them had gone to Rajubhai Badharbhai Bariya's house to dismantle the mandap set up for wedding and her husband, who used to do the work of setting up and dismantling mandaps, had gone there and in the evening at about 8 o'clock he had returned home and had gone to sleep. She and her daughter Usha were waiting for her sons and had not gone to sleep till late at night and went to sleep without having dinner.

(3.) Pursuant to lodging of the first information report, the investigating officer carried out investigation and upon finding sufficient evidence against the accused, submitted a charge sheet in the court of the concerned magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Panchmahals, Godhra, where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.191 of 2011. The charge came to be framed at Exhibit 2, which as translated into English reads thus: