Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 45 (GUJ)

DHANJIBHAI PITAMBARDAS PARMAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2019-01-22

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2019
JUDGMENT R P DHOLARIA, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 17.09.1999 passed by learned Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.433 of 1995, whereby the appellants-accused were convicted for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC for short). By the impugned judgment, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and ordered to pay Rs.1,000/- fine and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of three months was imposed for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Whereas, for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and ordered to pay Rs.1,000/- fine and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of six months was imposed. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The short fact of the case is that on the day of incident i.e. on 12.09.1995, while the deceased was cooking, as she added more salt in the vegetables, the shake(food) had become salty due to which her husband got excited and picked up a quarrel with the deceased and thereafter, left for factory. Thereafter, the sister-in-law and mother-in-law also picked up a quarrel with the deceased, due to which, after about 4-5 hours in the afternoon, the deceased poured kerosene over her person, set herself on fire, got burned and succumbed to injuries. Thereby, the appellants committed an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the complaint was lodged with the police. 3. Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was sessions triable, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the charges against the accused, prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and 14 documentary evidence. 3.2 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. 3.1 In order to bring home the charges against the accused, prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and 14 documentary evidence. 3.2 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 3.3 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned judgment, convicted the appellants-accused. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 17.09.1999 passed by learned Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.433 of 1995, the appellants-accused have preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. Learned advocate for the appellants has taken this Court through the entire record & proceedings and fairly conceded that as the case of the prosecution is based upon the dying declarations getting corroboration from other evidence on record, he cannot claim clean acquittal, but he has prayed that taking into consideration time-lag of about 24 years, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced while maintaining the conviction as such. 5. On other hand, learned APP has submitted that the Court may impose appropriate sentence since the conviction is based upon the dying declarations, direct evidence as well as corroborative evidence on record. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate at Exh.22 wherein the deceased inter alia deposed that on the day of incident, while she was cooking, as she added more salt, the shake (food) had become salty, due to which, her husband got excited and picked up a quarrel and thereafter, left for factory. She further deposed that her sister-in-law and mother-in-law also picked up a quarrel, due to which, after about 4-5 hours in the afternoon, she poured kerosene over her person, set herself on fire, got burned. The same story is also revealing from the complaint which is in the nature of dying declaration recorded by the police inspector on 12.09.1995 at Exh.35. 7. The same story is also revealing from the complaint which is in the nature of dying declaration recorded by the police inspector on 12.09.1995 at Exh.35. 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid dying declarations as well as other evidence on record, the say of the deceased is fully getting corroboration from other evidence on record and this Court is satisfied that the offence is being constituted under Section 498A of IPC. On overall appreciation of aforesaid dying declarations, a grave role is reveling against the husband and general allegations are revealing against mother-in-law and sister-in-law. It is also emerging out that the husband used to beat the deceased and used to harass her constantly due to which the aforesaid extreme step was taken by her. 8. In view of aforesaid factual scenario, evidence on record, peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the incident in question occurred in the year 1995 and the present appeal is being considered in the year 2019 for about after 24 years and during the course of trial as well as during the pendency of this appeal, the accused were on bail, in this situation, this Court deems it appropriate to maintain the conviction so recorded by learned trial court against all the accused. However, on the point of sentence, this Court reduces the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from three years to six months for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. In the same way, it is also reduced from 5 years to three months for the offence under Section 306 of IPC so far as appellant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned taking into consideration appellant No.2-mother-in-law having already crossed the age of 62 years and young age of appellant No.3-sister-in-law having children. However, so far as appellant No.1 is concerned, it is reduced from five years to three years for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Rest of the order as regards imposing fine and other directions shall remain unaltered. 9. The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 13.6.1997 passed by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.14 of 1994 stands modified to the above extent. As the accused are on bail, they shall surrender for serving out rest of the sentence within a period of two months from today. The bail and bail bond stands cancelled. Surety, if any, shall stand discharged. 10. As the accused are on bail, they shall surrender for serving out rest of the sentence within a period of two months from today. The bail and bail bond stands cancelled. Surety, if any, shall stand discharged. 10. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.