SAVJI @ SAVO SOMABHAI CHAVDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Jamnagar on 31.12.2003 in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2000 whereby the appellant accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine, S.I for three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, R.I for two years and fine of Rs. 250/ - and in default of payment of fine, S.I for two months for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and S.I for three months and fine of Rs. 100/ - and in default of payment of fine, S.I for one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. The substantive sentence of imprisonment was ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in nutshell is that the appellant was the husband of the deceased Vanitaben. Both the spouses were residing in Village Lalpur, District Jamnagar. It is alleged that the deceased was meted out with cruelty and ill treatment by the appellant. The incident occurred round about 8 pm on 24.10.1999, and it is alleged that deceased was beaten by the appellant with stick and kick and fist blows and, thereafter, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set her to fire. Deceased was immediately removed to initially Lalpur hospital, and thereafter, Civil hospital, Jamnagar. In Civil hospital, Jamnagar, her first information report came to be recorded. The FIR was registered and investigation was started. After collecting the required material for the purpose of lodgment of chargesheet, chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Lalpur. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned JMFC, Lalpur committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Jamnagar, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 37 of 2000.

(3.) LEARNED trial Judge framed charge at Exh.3 to which the appellant did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses and produced relevant documentary evidence. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the learned trial Judge recorded further statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the appellant denied generally all the incriminating circumstances put to him by the trial Court and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. However, the appellant examined as defence witness Dr. Gagan Bihari Yadav at Exh.67. After considering the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of dying declaration of the deceased. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the history given by the deceased before Medical Officer and her statement recorded of Investigating Police Officer in form of FIR are her dying declaration. Ultimately, the trial Court recorded conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 323 of the IPC and awarded the sentence as herein above referred in this judgment.