STATE OF GUJ Vs. INDUBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and order dated 26. 07. 1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baroda, in Sessions Case No. 126 of 1987, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent accused of the charges levelled against her.

(2.) THE short facts of the prosecution case, in brief, is that Arvindbhai Bhogilal Thakkar used to reside at State Bank colony, Bungalow No. 12, situated at Karelibaug area within the city of Vadodara. The deceased Madhuben alias Jayaben happened to be the first wife of Arvindbhai Thakkar. It is the case of the prosecution that after the marriage Madhuben had delivered daughter but later on she was not having a child and, therefore, there was some disputes between Arvindbhai and deceased Madhuben. The disputes had resulted into the separation of the spouses. Durign this period of separation it is the case of the prosecution that Arvindbhai Thakkar had entered into the second marriage with the present accused Induben. Madhuben had initiated maintenance proceeding against her husband and some amount was fixed by the trial Court which was ultimately modified by the High Court of Gujarat. It is the case of the prosecution that Arvindbhai was not desirous of paying this monthly amount and, therefore, he was able to persuade the deceased to revert back to the matrimonial home. It is alleged that thereafter both, Madhuben and Induben were resdiding with Arvindbhai Thakkar at the State Bank Colony, but the relations between the accused and the deceased were far from cordial. It is alleged that on 3. 4. 1987 at about 12. 00 noon the accused in the company of her minor daughter had sprinkled kerosene on the deceased Madhuben and she was pushed in the bath-room and she received serious burns injuries. Later on, Arvindbhai Thakkar was informed and he had removed the deceased to the SSG Hospital, Vadodara. The respondent accused had also accompanied them to the Hospital. It is alleged that at the time of admission in the hospital the deceased had given history of homicidal burns. Her FIR was recorded which was, according to the case of the prosecution, a Dying Declaration. In the said FIR also the deceased had given history of homicidal burns. It is the case of the prosecution that Executive Magistrate had recorded the Dying Declaration in which also she had stated that the author of the burns was none-else but the present accused Induben. It is also the case of the prosecution that deceased Madhuben had made the oral dying declaration before her relations. On the basis of said FIR given by the deceased, the offence under Sections 307 and 114 of I. P. Code were registered, but, later on Madhuben had expired in the Hospital and, therefore, the offence under Section 302 read with Section 114 of I. P. Code were registered.

(3.) THEREAFTER, investigation was carried out, statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation the charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, against the accused. As the offences were absolutely triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate, has committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, which was registered as Sessions Case No. 126 of 1987. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. To prove the case against the accused the prosecution has examined the following witnesses : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2223_TLGJ0_2009Html1.htm</FRM> To prove the case against the accused the prosecution has produced following documents : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2223_TLGJ0_2009Html2.htm</FRM>