DHULABHAI MANIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who was original accused in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2004, by preferring this appeal challenged the legality and validity of his conviction, recorded by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad [rural] on 27/5/2005 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 [2] of the Indian Penal Code [ipc]. The Ld. Trial Judge awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment [ri] for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, RI for 3 months for the offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC and RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for one month for the offence punishable under section 506 [2] of the IPC. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit of set off was given.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the appellant happens to be father-in-law of prosecutrix - Bhavna alias Bhavika. The prosecutrix married with Mahendra Dhulabhai, son of the appellant on 17/2/2003 and after her marriage, she went to reside with her husband at her matrimonial home situated at village Ognaj of District Ahmedabad. The family of her husband, at the time of the incident, consisted of her father-in-law [appellant], her mother-in-law Hiraben and minor girl Anchal, aged about 3 years, who was daughter of her husband's elder brother.

(3.) THE Ld. Trial Judge framed charge against the appellant at exh. 4 for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 [2] of the IPC, to which the appellant did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence. After the prosecution completed its oral evidence, the Ld. Trial Judge recorded further statement of the appellant under section 313 of the Cr. P. C. , and the appellant in his further statement denied generally all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution. The Ld. Trial Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record and considering submissions made on behalf of both the sides, came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the appellant and recorded the conviction of the appellant for the commission of offences punishable under sections 376 and 506[2] of the IPC and awarded the sentence as hereinabove referred to in this judgment.