SHAILESH ALIAS SHAILENDRA KALYANDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment a d order rendered by Sessions Court, Rajkot, on 30th September, 2004 in Sessions Case No. 93 of 2004. The appellants came to be convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 and Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC ). For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of IPC, the appellants were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. For the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, no separate sentence was awarded by the Trial Court.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 2 are brothers and Appellant No. 3 is the mother of Appellants No. 1 and 2. Her name is Hiruben Kalyandas Parmar, although the cause title reflects Hiraben. Appellant No. 1 was married to one Nainaben about four years prior to the incident and were staying at Jamnagar. After about two years of marriage, there were some family disputes and Appellant No. 1 and his wife, Naina, were driven out of the house and since then, the were staying at Rajkot, on the second floor of the house of father of deceased-Naina. Since then the relationship between Appellant No. 1 on the one hand and Appellants No. 2 and 3 on the other hand were strained. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 31st May, 2004, in the morning hours, before 9. 30 A. M. , Appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 collectively quarrelled with Naina and asked her to get Rs. 20,000/- from her father and, in that quarrel, it is alleged that Appellant No. 3 caught hold of the deceased, Appellant No. 2 poured kerosene on her and Appellant No. 1 set Naina on fire and, thereafter, they all left the room after bolting the front door from outside. It is the case of the prosecution that, initially, Appellants No. 2 and 3, who were followed by Appellant No. 1, left the place. When Appellant No. 1 was about to leave, he was noticed by P. W. 5. P. W. 5 wanted to talk to him, but Appellant No. 1 did not respond and left on his motorcycle. Around that time, P. W. 5 claims to have heard shouts of his sister from the upper floor. Therefore, he, his mother, his wife and his sister, all rushed to the second floor of the house, where they found the front door bolted from outside. Upon entering the room, they found deceased-Naina engulfed in fire. They doused the fire with the help of a quilt and then took Naina to the hospital. It is the case of the prosecution that on the way to hospital, in the Ambulance, Naina informed her mother about the aforesaid incident. After going to the hospital, she was examined by the doctor and she gave the history to the doctor, in which, she stated that because of the harassment meted out to her by Appellants No. 2 and 3, she had attempted suicide by pouring kerosene over herself and setting herself ablaze. The doctor then informs the police deployed at the hospital. The police personnel at the hospital passes the information to the Police Station, namely, Malaviyanagar Police Station, Rajkot, and the police rushes to the hospital. After going to the hospital, the police recorded the first information from brother of the deceased. The F. I. R. is a detailed F. I. R. , which alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 114 of IPC in the main. On the basis of the F. I. R. , offence was registered and investigated. At the end of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session and Sessions Case No. 93 of 2004 came to be registered. Charge was framed at Exhibit 5 against the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 114 and 504 of IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The Trial Court accepted the prosecution case and held that the offences with which the appellants were charged were duly proved and recorded the conviction of the appellants and passed the sentence, as stated hereinabove.

(3.) WE have heard learned Advocate, Mr. Mehta, for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Nanavati, for the respondent-State.