SATISHKUMAR KANTILAL DAVE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and order recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Sessions Case No. 169 of 1991 passed on 29-1-1994 and raise questions as to whether culpability of the appellant/accused Satishkumar Kantilal Dave, held to be proved under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) and order of sentence to suffer imprisonment for life imposed upon him can be said to be lenient and not adequate in view of the culpability of the accused who was charged with the offence of double murder of a Malayalee couple in an incident occurred between 5-15 and 5-30 in the early morning on 20-8-1991 when they visited the house of the accused in search of their victim daughter Geeta who was induced by the accused to marry him and forcibly detained her in his custody by claiming as his lawfully wedded wife in spite of the fact that he has married twice and has two wives and four children and, therefore, they are being dealt with simultaneously by this common judgment.

(2.) Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 1994 is filed by original accused challenging conviction recorded against him under Secs. 302 and 201 of I.P.C., and under Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Sec. 302 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month for the offence under Sec. 201 of I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 15 days for the offence under Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act whereas Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1994 is filed by the State questioning the legality and validity of the sentence on the ground that looking to the culpability of the appellant/accused, that is, double murder of a Malayalee couple, on the ground that sentence is inadequate and on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is the fit case falling, in category of rarest of the rare case attracting punishment of death and, therefore, prayed in this appeal that punishment imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge being inadequate, therefore, death sentence may be imposed on the accused.

(3.) Obviously, a skeleton of the spectrum of material relevant facts, leading to the rise of these group of two appeals needs narration at this stage.