ZILUJI BHAVSANGJI VIHOLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who was original accused in Sessions Case No. 248 of 2004, preferred this appeal challenging his conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, on 11. 03. 2005, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 498a and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The appellant-original accused was awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ("i. P. C. " for short) and rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I. P. C. For the offence punishable under Section 498a of the I. P. C. , the appellant was awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 506 (2) of the I. P. C. ; and for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, simple imprisonment for three days. The appellant came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the I. P. C.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the first informant, Sajjanben, happens to be the wife of the appellant. The incident occurred in the outskirts of village Khavad, District Mehsana, on 09. 07. 2004 between 9. 00 A. M. and 10. 00 A. M. According to the prosecution case, the first informant, Sajjanben, and minor Ajit, who happens to be the son of Sajjanben and the accused, had gone to collect fire wood and when they were returning to their home, the accused, armed with Dharia, chased them, abused Sajjanben and alleged that she was a lady of bad character and inflicted blows of Dharia on her legs. When Sajjanben resisted the assault by raising her hands, the blows were inflicted on her hands and even on her head. When minor Ajit tried to intervene, the accused threatened his son, Ajit, that if he would intervene, he would be done to death and, thereupon, Ajit tried to run away, but the accused threw the Dharia on the body of Ajit and he sustained bodily injury. The first informant, Sajjanben, lodged a First Information Report with Bavlu Police Station, which came to be registered and the investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, both the injured persons, i. e. first informant, Sajjanben, and Ajit, were sent for medical examination and treatment, medical certificates were collected by the police and statements of material witnesses were recorded. After the investigation was completed, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Kadi. As the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I. P. C. was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Mehsana, which came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 248 of 2004.

(3.) THE learned Trial Judge framed charge against the accused at Exhibit 1 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 307, 323, 506 (2), 498a and 504 of the I. P. C. and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. After the prosecution completed its oral evidence, the learned Judge recorded further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused denied generally all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution and stated that he did not cause any injury either to his wife or to his son and he was falsely implicated by his wife in this case at the instance of her brother. After appreciating the evidence on record and considering the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the learned Trial Judge recorded conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 498a and 506 (2) of the I. P. C. and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and awarded the sentence as hereinabove referred to in this judgment and, hence, this appeal.