PARSHOTTAM KARSANBHAI PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants, who were original accused persons in Sessions Case No. 191 of 2002 came to be convicted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Ahmedabad on 19.9.2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and each of them was awarded sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. They have challenged their conviction and sentence by preferring this appeal in this Court.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant accused No. 1 happened to be the husband of deceased Naynaben and the appellant accused No. 2 Lilaben happened to be her mother -in -law. The appellant accused No. 1 Purshottam married Naynaben on dated 27.2.2002. It is alleged that from the day one of the married life of Naynaben, she was subjected to physical and mental torture and cruelty by the appellants. On petty household matters, she was subjected to cruel treatment. It is alleged that on dated 2.5.2002, at about 9.45 p. m. , the appellant poured kerosene on Naynaben and set her on fire. Naynaben sustained serious burn injuries and was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. During her treatement, at 11.25 p.m., on the same day, she expired. Jayantbhai Devjibhai, the uncle of deceased Naynaben lodged FIR in connection with this incident in 'G' division police station, Ahmedabad. Police commenced investigation and statements of material witnesses were recorded, required panchnamas were drawn in presence of panchas, and after collecting required material for the purpose of lodgment of chargesheet, chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, committed the case to the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, which came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 191 of 2002.

(3.) The learned trial Judge framed charge against both the appellants at Exh. 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution thereupon adduced oral and documentary evidence. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the ld. trial Judge recorded further statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. , and the appellants generally denied all the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution and stated that at the time of the incident, they were not available in their home and they came to know that Naynaben sustained burn injuries, subsequently through the neighbours. After appreciating the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, ld. trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt against both the appellants accused persons, regarding the offence of murder of Naynaben and causing cruelty to her, and recorded their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC and awarded the sentence as hereinabove referred to in this judgment. Ld. Advocate Ms. Mita Panchal for Ms. K. D. Parmar for the appellants submitted that the ld. trial Judge erred in recording the conviction of the appellants for the offences charged against them. It was submitted that the trial Court based the conviction solely on so -called oral dying -declaration made by deceased Naynaben before Doctor in form of history of injury and before the witnesses. It is submitted that the alleged oral dying -declaration is not in conformity with the panchnama of the scene of incident. It is submitted that considering the panchnama of the scene of incident and the evidence of neighbours, it clearly transpires that the incident took place in a latrine, admeasuring 3ft x 3ft in area, and the door of the latrine was bolted from inside, and the neighbours had to break -open the door and rescued Naynaben in burnt condition from the latrine. That, thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution itself clearly reveals that the deceased committed suicide and she was not ignited by any of the accused persons, by pouring kerosene on her.