BHANIBEN KALUBHAI SIDDIBHAI VALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under section 374 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 11. 6. 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 8, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 171 of 2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under section 498 (A),306,114 of IPC and sentenced appellant no. 1 to suffer SI for 2 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo SI for a period of 6 months for the offence U/s. 498/a and sentenced to suffer S. I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default SI for one year for the offence U/s. 306 IPC, and sentenced the to appellant no. 2 to suffer SI for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence U/s. 498- A of IPC and further to suffer SI for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default SI for 1 year for the offence U/s. 306 IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2. 1 On the date of incident, 19th February 2001, Daxaben wife of Dineshbhai Kalubhai, had sprinkled kerosene on herself and set her fire, due to the mental and physical harassment of accused appellants. Dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Therefore on the basis of the FIR the offence was filed against the respondent with the Bhavnagar Police Station which was registered as C. R. No. I-62/2002. Necessary investigation was carried out and the statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondents were arrested and ultimately, chargesheet was filed against them. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 171 of 2001. The trial was initiated against the respondents. To prove the case against accused, the prosecution has produced following documents.

(3.) IT was contended by learned Advocate for the appellant that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident and most of the witness have not supported the case of prosecution. According to him the entire case is based on hearsay evidence which has no evidentiary value. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the nexus between the appellant and alleged crime in question. He has further submitted that no ingredients of the offences are made out against the present appellant and therefore the appeal deserved to be allowed. Mrs. Manisha Lavkumar Shah learned APP appearing for the state submitted that the sessions court has considered the matter in depth and the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present appellant and there is no case is made out to take a different view of the matter.