Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/213/1996 6/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 213 of 1996
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
BHANUBHAI
KADVABHAI SOLANKI - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARDIK S SONI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR HL JANI, APP, for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 24/01/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
appellant – original accused has filed this Appeal against
the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.02.1996
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in
Sessions Case No. 119 of 1994, whereby the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has held the appellant – accused guilty (i) for
the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P. Code and sentenced
him to suffer Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- i/d to undergo SI for 4 (four) month and (ii) for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P. Code and sentenced
him to suffer Imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- i/d to undergo SI for two months. The learned Judge
ordered that all the sentences to run concurrently. On 6.3.1996 the
appellant has submitted an application that he is poor and unable to
engage lawyer and that he may be provided Advocate from the Legal
Aid. The said application of the appellant was treated as Appeal and
accordingly treated as Criminal Appeal No.213 of 1996 and the
appellant was provided Advocate from the Legal Aid.
The
brief facts of the case of prosecution are that the appellant
married with Manjuben (deceased) before five years from the date of
incident, and out of their wedlock, two daughters were born. It is
alleged that the appellant was in the habit of consuming liquor and,
therefore, frequently the quarrels were taking place between the
appellant and the deceased. It is alleged that on the date of
incident, due to mental harassment, the deceased poured kerosene on
her and set her on fire. On seeing that his wife is burning, the
deceased shouted for help. Therefore, the neighbourers rushed there
and tried to save her. Thereafter, the father of the deceased came
and the deceased was shifted to the hospital where she died. It is
alleged that when the deceased was shifted to the hospital and when
the Police came, at that time she was fully conscious. The police
lodged the complaint. In the said complaint the victim has stated
that her husband (appellant) was in the habit of consuming liquor
and was beating and taunting her and, therefore, due to mental
harassment of her husband, she has committed suicide. The police
registered the offence under Sections 306 & 498-A of I.P. Code
against the accused.
The
accused was arrested. Necessary investigation was carried out by the
Police. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses were
recorded. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the
charge-sheet against the accused came to be submitted before the
Court. As the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, the
learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the
accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to
be tried.
To
prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the
witnesses and also relied upon documentary evidence and at the end
of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section
313 Cr. P.C., and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the
prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
held the appellant (original accused) guilty of the offences under
Sections 306 and 498-A of I.P. Code and awarded sentence as
naratted herein above.
Being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and order
of conviction and sentence, the appellant – accused has
preferred this Appeal.
Heard
learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned
APP Mr. Jani on behalf of the respondent – State. I have gone
through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court. I have
also considered the documents produced on the record of the case.
Learned
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant – accused, has
contended that the appellant – accused has not committed any offence
as alleged against him in the charge. He has contended that without
properly appreciating the evidence in its true perspective and
without considering the defence raised by the accused, the trial
Court has booked the accused just for the sake of conviction. He
has contended that he is not arguing the matter on merit and he is
arguing the matter only for the quantum of sentence. He has
contended that looking to the facts of the case and the fact that
the appellant is having two daughters and there is nobody in his
family to look after them, the sentence awarded by the learned Judge
may be suitably reduced.
Learned
APP has supported the Judgment and order passed by the learned Judge
and contended that looking to the seriousness of offence, no
interference of this Court is called for. He has contended that
looking to the facts and evidence on records the learned Judge has
rightly held the accused guilty for the offences alleged against him
and, therefore, no interference is required to be called for.
I
have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge and also gone through the documents
produced before me. I have also considered the submissions made by
the learned Advocates for the parties. I have gone through the
record and proceedings of the case. I have also gone through the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material evidence. I
have also considered the Judgment of the trial Court. From the
evidence on record, it clearly appears that the learned Judge has
not committed any error in holding the appellant – accused
guilty of the offences alleged against him. However, looking to the
facts of the case, in my opinion, the sentence awarded by the
learned Judge is required to be reduced. The learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellant has also contended that the
appellant – accused is poor person and is a bread-winner of
the family and, therefore, some leniency may be shown towards the
appellant. It is stated at the bar that the appellant –
accused had already undergone the sentence of about 2 years.
However, at present, he is on bail. Looking to the facts of the case
and considering the facts that the appellant is having two daughters
and there is no body to look after them, I am, therefore, of the
opinion that if the sentence awarded by the learned Judge for the
offence under Section 306 of I.P. Code is reduced to an extent of
4-12 years, the same would serve the ends of justice.
In
view of above, the Appeal is partly allowed. The Judgment and order
of conviction and sentence dated 20.02.1996 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 119 of
1994 is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence awarded by the
learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned judgment, holding the
appellant – accused guilty for the offences under Section 306
of I.P. Code is modified and reduced to an extent of 4-1/2 years
(four years and six months) imprisonment, instead of 7 (seven) years
imprisonment. Rest of the Judgment and order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge is confirmed. Sentence of fine imposed for the
offence under Section 306 of I.P. Code is also hereby confirmed. The
appellant – accused is on bail and, therefore, his Bail Bond
stands cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Jail
Authority to under-go his sentence within a period of 4 (four)
weeks, failing which Non-Bailable Warrant shall be issued against
the appellant – accused to effect his arrest. R & P to be
sent back to the trial Court immediately.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
sas
Top