1. The present appellant has preferred this Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.1.2006 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.22 of 2004, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellants. The appellants No.2, 3 and 5 were ordered to undergo R.I. for two years and appellants No.4 and 6 were ordered to undergo R.I. for one year and the appellant No.1 was to undergo R.I. for three years and each of them to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to under further S.I. for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Also the appellant No.1 was ordered to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay the fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for one year, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
2. The complainant Dahiben Govindbhai Parmar lodged complaint against the appellants - accused. As per the case of the complainant, she had five daughters and one son and out of all daughters, fourth daughter named Manjula married with Jitendra M. Patel prior to four years from to the date of incident at village Pahadpur, Ta. Modasa, District : Sabarkantha. Initially for about two years, she was treated well by the members of her in-laws family and thereafter, she was taunted under one or another pretext and also with the instigation of both the sisters-in-laws (Jethani) and mother-in-law, her husband used to beat her and she was disliked by all of them. The daughter Manjula had also complained about the same to her mother and on 23.4.2003, she had returned to her parents house with the complaint of beating and mental cruelty. Prior to the date of incident, she had gone to her in-laws house due to her father-in-law had passed away. On 3.6.2003, she had visited Ahmedbad city with her husband and was living at her in-laws place, where she was found to be hanging in the kitchen and her life came to be end. Therefore, the complaint was lodged on 4.6.2003 by the complainant, mother of the deceased Manjula against the appellants, being the I C.R. No.159 of 2003 with the Shaher Kotda Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, police filed reply to add the charge of 306 instead of 302 and all the accused have been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the same was committed under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was numbered as Sessions Case No. 22 of 2004.
4. To prove the case against the appellants, the prosecution has produced following documentary evidence and also examined the witnesses before the trial Court.
Exh.
26 : Complaint of complainant Dahiben Limba Parmar Exh.
27 : Report registration of crime u/s. 147 of Cr.P.C.
Exh.
14 : Inquest Panchnama of deceased Manjulaben Exh. 28 :
Panchnama of scene of offence Exh.
29 : Panchnama regarding seizure of clothes of deceased after P.M.
Exh.
20 : Report of P.M. of deceased Manjulaben Exh.30 : Report of examination of scene of offence by FSL.
Exh.
31: Dispatch note of Muddama Shaer Kotda Police Station.
Exh.
32 : Receipt of three sealed packets of Muddamal sent by FSL to Shaher Kotda Police Station.
Exh.
33 : Receipt of one sealed packet Exh.
34 : Report of FSL Exh.35 : Report of FSL given by Mr. R.N. Shah Exh.36 : Report of FSL given by Mr. J.J. Shah Exh.22 : Vardhi given by complainant to Shaher Kotda Police Station.
Exh.23 :
Report of Police Sub-Inspector, Shaher Kotda Police Station.
Following witnesses have been examined by the prosecution:
Exh.12 : PW 1 - Dahiben Govindbhai - Complainant.
Exh.13 : PW 2 - Vinubhai Savabhai Patel (Panch) Exh.15 : PW 3 - Somabhai Muljibhai Parmar (Panch) Exh.19 : PW 4 - Dr. Jayendra Ratilal Modi.
Exh.21 : PW 5 - Parsottam Manilal Parmar (Police Officer and I.O.) Exh.25 : PW 6 - Prabhudas Vehatji Kotwal (Police Officer and I.O.) The witness Bipinkumar Karshandas Solanki at Exhibit 41 has been examined on behalf of the defence.
5. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellant - accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which the appellants - accused has denied the case of the prosecution.
6. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidences and after hearing the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ahmedabad, vide judgment and order dated 28.1.2005 held the appellants - accused guilty to the charges levelled against them under Sections 498(A), 306 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ahmedabad, the present appellants has preferred this appeal.
8. Learned advocate Mr. C.B. Raval appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that there were several contradictions between the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the case against the present appellants. There is not a single reliable evidence or any circumstances connecting any of the accused in the alleged commission of the crime. If evidence of the complainant is closely scrutinizing, it suffers from serious infirmity as like improvement before the Court first time, contradictions and unbelievable false story and not trustworthy. Therefore, her evidence does not inspire confidence and the learned trial Judge has relied upon the oral evidence of complainant and convicted wrongly the appellants. The deceased Manjula ended her life on account of her own illness and none of accused is responsible for her death. He further contended that as per Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is duty of the prosecution to establish that the women committed suicide within 7 years of marriage life due to cruelty meted out by her husband and his family members.
Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ahmedabad is required to quashed and set aside.
9. The learned APP Mr. H.H. Parikh for the State strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants. It was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the learned trial Court is just and proper and as per the provisions of law; the trial Court has properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present appellants. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Therefore, appeal of the appellants is required to be dismissed.
10. After arguing at length, learned advocate Mr. Raval for the appellants submitted that he is arguing this appeal only on the quantum of punishment and not on merits, so he prays to reduce the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge, which is very harsh. He further submitted that the appellant No.1 - Jitendrakuamr Maganbhai Patel, who is husband of deceased Manjula, appellant No.2 - Madhuben Maganbhai Patel, who is mother-in-law of deceased, appellant No.3 Girishbhai Maganbhai Patel and appellant No.5 Rameshbhai Maganbhai Patel, who are brothers-in-laws of the deceased and appellants No.4 and 6 - Gitaben Girishbhai Patel and Minaben Rameshbhai Patel are the sisters-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased. He further submitted that the appellant No.1 has already undergone the jail period for 4 years and 12 days, as he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years. The appellants No.2,3 and 5 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants have been ordered to undergo imprisonment R.I. for a period of two years as well as the appellant No.1 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants No.4 and 6 have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for period of one year under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and all the appellants have to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for six months. Therefore, he submitted that the sentence, which is imposed upon the appellants is very harsh and therefore, the same is required to be reduced.
11. Learned APP Mr. Parikh has in response to the submission regarding reducing sentence imposed upon appellants, submitted that by considering the period of undergone of the appellants, the sentence if may be reduced, then the State has objection.
12. Learned advocate Mr. Raval also submitted that the appellants No.2 to 6 may kindly be granted four weeks time to surrender before the Jail Authority.
13. I have perused the judgment and order and reasons given by the learned Judge also. I have also perused the complaint filed by the complainant as well as supporting documentary as well as oral evidence. From the perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge, it is also clear that the marriage span of the deceased with the appellant No.1 is of 5 years and there is no specific marriage date is mentioned by the appellants. The complainant has also categorically stated about the role attributed to the in-laws as well as of the incident of pushing her daughter from the scooter and the last incident that had taken place on 23.4.2004 on account of alleged illicit relationship of her husband and it is also reflected from the evidence that deceased was ill-treated by her in-laws and she was forced to leave the house. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly considered the evidences led by the prosecution and rightly convicted the accused appellants and therefore, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the said judgment and order, but for the quantum of punishment, this Court can consider about reducing the sentence.
14. I have considered the submission about the quantum of punishment and the appellant No.1 has undergone 4 years and 12 days in jail, as the period of his conviction is of 7 years. Therefore, he has undergone more than half period and therefore, looking to the quantum of punishment, the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for 7 years under Section 306 is required to be modified and the sentence imposed upon other appellants i.e. the appellant No.2 to 6 is also required to be modified.
15. In view of the above observation, the Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, in Sessions Case No.22 of 2004, is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence imposed is reduced to the extent that the appellants No.2,3 and 5 are ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code for 6 months instead of 2 years and so far as appellants No.4 and 6 are concerned, they are ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months instead of one year for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code. For the appellant No.1, the undergone sentence shall be treated as sentence. The appellant No.1 is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Considering the request made by Mr. Raval, learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants No.2,3,4,5 and 6 are hereby directed to surrender before the Jail Authority within four weeks from the date of this order, failing which, the concerned Court shall issue non-bailable warrant to effect the arrest of the appellants No.2,3,4,5 and 6.
Rest of the judgment of the learned Sessions Court shall remain unaltered. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.) ynvyas Top