HARUBHA JILUBHA JHALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants came to be tried by City Sessions Court for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498a read with Section 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code ("i. P. C. " for short) and Section 304b of the I. P. C. , so also Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with two other accused persons, namely, Yogesh Harubha Jhala and Beenaben Mahendrabhai Jadeja, in Sessions Case No. 354 of 2000. The Trial Court acquitted co-accused, Yogesh Harubha Jhala and Beenaben Mahendrabhai Jadeja, of all the charges whereas convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. , Section 304b read with Section 114 of the I. P. C. and Section 498a of the I. P. C. For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. , all the three appellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. For the offence punishable under Section 304b read with Section 114 of the I. P. C. , they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and for the offence punishable under Section 498a of the I. P. C. , they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The convicts have, therefore, preferred this appeal. They were original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, before the Trial Court and the acquitted accused were original accused Nos. 4 and 5.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that appellant No. 3 married one Neelamben, daughter of Dilipsinh Bhavsinh Vaghela, on 11th February, 2000. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry given to Neelamben at the time of the marriage and, they were demanding a colour television set and a Hero Honda motorcycle. Their demand was persistent and resulted into their causing physical and mental torture on the deceased soon after the marriage. The incident occurred on 9. 5. 2000 around 16. 00 hours in the residence of the appellants located at Nobel Nagar Tenaments, at Naroda, Ahmedabad. As per the prosecution case, at the time of the incident, the three accused persons sprinkled kerosene on the deceased and set her to fire, as a result of which she sustained severe burns injuries to the extent of about 50 to 60 per cent. She was, however, taken to Heena Surgical Hospital of Dr. Amit Patel in an auto-rickshaw by appellants No. 1 and 3. The doctor, after recording the history given to him by the patient, i. e. deceased-Neelamben, gave treatment and then informed police on telephone. On the basis of the telephone intimation, P. S. I. , Pandya, came to the Hospital and recorded statement of Neelamben. Thereafter, a Yadi was sent to the Executive Magistrate for recording dying declaration of Neelamben, who came to the hospital around 11. 00 P. M. and recorded dying declaration of Neelamben. In the meanwhile, around 9. 30 P. M. , father of Neelamben arrived at the hospital. On the next day, another statement of Neelamben was recorded by Police Inspector, Vachchani.

(3.) WE have heard learned Advocate, Mr. MHM Shaikh, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Mengdey.