VINODBHAI GOVINDBHAI MAKWAN ROHIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT Appeal is preferred by the accused - appellants under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order delivered by Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No. 5, Vadodara, on 16th of July, 2004, in Sessions Case No. 244 of 2003, whereby both the present appellants, being accused No. 1 and 2 of the said Sessions Case, came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 to read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and each of the accused appellants was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of 10 days. Both the accused - appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A to read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, but learned Trial Judge acquitted both the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A to read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and against that conclusion, no Appeal has been preferred by the State.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case in brief, incident took place on 14th of November, 2002 at about 13. 00 hours at village Dabhasa, Taluka - Padra, District - Vadodara. According to the prosecution case, in this incident, deceased is Sushilaben, wife of accused No. 1. Vinodbhai Govindbhai Makwana and accused No. 2 Dayiben, is mother-in-law of the deceased Sushilaben. The deceased Sushilaben had married with the accused No. 1 before 10 to 12 years of the incident and thereafter the deceased was residing at her in-laws. For about five years, married life was smooth and thereafter accused No. 1 cultivated habit of drinking liquor and was picking quarrel with Sushilaben. She was also forced, according to prosecution case, to bring money from her parents, and on that account, deceased Sushilaben was meted with physical as well as mental cruelty. Sushilaben was visiting her parental home and used to convey her plight to her parents and her brother and, ultimately, on 14th of November, 2002, according to prosecution case, both the accused took her to the toilet of their house, poured kerosene over her and she was ignited to flames. Brother of the accused No. 1 Chimanbhai Laljibhai brought her to SSG Hospital at Vadodara where she was treated by PW-12 Dr. Sherbanu Azamkhan Pathan, and according to her, deceased had 99 to 100% burns and in history she conveyed that accused had poured kerosene over her and set her to ablaze. Dr. Sherbanu noted the history in case papers, which are produced on record at Exhibit-38. According to Dr. Sherbanu Azamkhan Pathan, she was fully conscious while history was recorded. During treatment, after some time, Sushilaben died. On that day, at about 14. 10 hours, Duty Head Constable Zaverbhai Chitabhai, at hospital, sent a vardhi to Raopura Police Station, Vadodara, which is produced at Exhibit-14, to the effect that Dr. Sherbanu Azamkhan Pathan had informed that Sushilaben was brought to the hospital with a history that both the accused poured kerosene over her and set her to ablaze in their toilet. Crime came to be registered upon this entry and PW-11 Jaydevsing Jitendrasing Solanki took over the investigation of the crime, visited the hospital immediately, but at that time, deceased was unconscious and, therefore, her statement could not be recorded and the statements of other witnesses were recorded. In the meantime, Sushilaben died and, therefore, inquest panchnama was drawn, panchnama of scene of offence was drawn and at the scene of offence, Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory was summoned. In his presence, from the scene of offence, soot etc were seized on 20th of November, 2002, accused were arrested and by discovery panchnama accused No. 1 discovered one empty kerosene tin, which was seized, muddamal was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and, ultimately, charge sheet came to be filed on 28th of November, 2003.

(3.) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions, charge was framed by the Trial Court at Exhibit-5 on 20th of March, 2004. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and, hence, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and produced on record various documents to prove its case. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2345_TLGJ0_2009Html1.htm</FRM>