NATHABHAI MAGANBHAI RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad [rural] at Mirzapur for the offences punishable under Section 302, 498a, 504 read with Section 114 of IPC as accused of Sessions Case No. 137 of 1999. All the appellants were found guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of IPC and were ordered to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- each. In default punishment imposed was simple imprisonment for one month. The learned trial Judge also found the appellants guilty for offence punishable under Section 498a read with Section 114 of IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment of 6 months with fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default punishment of 15 days' simple imprisonment was imposed. This order of conviction and sentence dated 11th August, 2000 is challenged by the present appellants. This Court admitted the appeal on 6th September, 2000, but thereafter, on 29th August, 2005, the appellant no. 1 [original accused no. 1] has expired. Death certificate issued by Vejalpur Nagarpalika is produced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned APP has confirmed that appellant no. 1 has expired and therefore, the appeal of appellant no. 1 Nathabhai Maganbhai Raval, obviously shall have to be treated as abated.

(2.) ON the date of arguments, total 3 appellants were before the Court and submissions have been made on behalf of all the three appellants [original accused nos. 2,3 and 4]. Accused no. 2 Jasu Natha Raval is the brother-in-law of the deceased and younger brother of original accused no. 4 Prahlad Natha. Accused nos. 2 and 4 are at present undergoing the sentence imposed. Original accused no. 3 Kankuben has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20th September, 2000 and thus, she is on bail.

(3.) WE have carefully gone through the order of conviction and sentence and the Charge [exh. 4] framed by the learned trial Judge. The prosecution case, from the papers and evidence on record reveals in nutshell as under:-The parties are referred to hereafter in their original position before the trial Court, i. e. , appellants as accused and the respondent as complainant. Deceased accused Natha Magan was father-in-law of deceased Gitaben, accused no. 2 Jasu Natha is brother-in-law of accused no. 3. Kankuben is mother-in-law and accused no. 4 Prahlad Natha is the husband of victim Gitaben. On 8th January, 1999, in the evening at about 6. 00 p. m. , victim Gita received burn injuries on her body in her matrimonial house at Vejalpur. It is alleged that the accused nos. 1,2 and 3 caught hold of the deceased Gitaben and Prahlad Natha, accused no. 4, husband of the deceased sprinkled kerosene on her and ignited her by a matchstick. In this fire, the deceased victim sustained burn injuries. According to the prosecution, on shouts for help, neighbour Manjula Laxman and few others rushed to the spot and tried to save the deceased Gitaben and they ultimately extinguished the fire. This Manjula Laxman, residing in the neighbourhood is real cousin sister of the deceased Gitaben. It was alleged that as accused no. 3 Kankuben and accused no. 4 Prahlad Natha were active in setting ablaze the deceased, they received burn injuries. On the other hand, it has also come on record that say of the accused nos. 3 and 4 was consistent from the beginning that they had received burn injuries while saving the deceased Gitaben. Parents of the deceased were informed through accused no. 2 Jasu Natha that the deceased Gitaben had sustained burns and she was being shifted to a hospital. However, no exact information was given about the hospital. Ramesh, brother of the deceased Gita and father and mother of the deceased, Bhikhabhai, cousin brother of the deceased and Sakriben, wife of elder brother of the father of the deceased had reached at the matrimonial home of the deceased Gitaben at Vejalpur. According to the prosecution, after igniting fire, accused persons had left the house and Manjula and other neighbours had extinguished the fire. It was alleged that the accused no. 4 was a drunkard and was beating the deceased. Before about 4 days from the date of the incident, accused no. 4 had demanded Rs. 2,000/- from Gitaben and at that time, Gitaben had told her husband to firstly stop drinking and only thereafter she would bring the amount demanded. According to the prosecution, on 8th January, 1999, i. e. on the date of the incident at about 6. 00 p. m. accused no. 4 was drunk and abused the deceased and assaulted her. At that time, all the three accused. i. e. accused nos. 1,2 and 3 caught hold of the deceased and accused no. 4 sprinkled kerosene and set the deceased ablaze. Injured Gita, after the incident was taken in one ambassador car driven by driver Prahladji Jivanji and Kantiji Jivaji to village Ambapur of Taluka-Gandhinagar for medical treatment. The deceased was treated there by one Hasmukhbhai and bandages were applied and thereafter, the deceased was brought back to home. Prior to their arrival from Ambapur, parents of the deceased Gita had reached at Vejalpur. It was alleged that on asking the deceased Gitaben, the deceased Gitaben had told her parents and brother P. W. 1 Ramesh about the incident that she was set ablaze by the accused persons. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to Shardaben Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Prior to her admission in the said hospital, she had informed the doctor that she had sustained homicidal home burns at about 6. 00 p. m. It was alleged that necessary arrangement was made by police for recording of dying declaration of the deceased, wherein, the deceased disclosed the story that she had sustained burn injuries as she was set ablaze by her husband by sprinkling kerosene and in that incident, accused nos. 1,2 and 3 had caught hold of her. According to the prosecution, the deceased was being treated by the doctors of Shardaben Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, but ultimately, she died on 15th January, 1999 in the evening due to septicemia due to burns over the body. After the investigation, police chargesheeted all the 4 accused and after the trial, the leaned trial Judge held that the prosecution had successfully proved its case and accused persons had committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498a read with Section 114 of IPC. No formal conviction has been recorded for the offences punishable under Section 504 of IPC.