1. The present appellants have preferred this Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 3.5.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Sessions Case No.103 of 2001, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants to undergo one year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months S.I. for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were further ordered to undergo one year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to further undergo two months S.I. for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the daughter of the complainant namely Sajjanben married with the appellant No.1. The appellant No.2 is mother-in-law of said Sajjanben. Out of wedlock, the said Sajjanben gave birth two children; one daughter namely Geetaben and one son namely Vanrajsinh. The appellant No.1 has brother namely Budho. As per the complainant, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 had caused mental cruelty and physical harassment upon the said Sajjanben, daughter of the complainant. Even the said Sajjanben was driven out from the house of the appellants and thereafter, after sometime, she went to her matrimonial home. Again she was driven out by the appellants from her matrimonial home. After some years, the children of said Sajjanben attained marriageable age and they got married. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 continued to give mental cruelty and and physical harassment to Sajjanben under one pretext or another. On 17.2.2001, the quarrel picked up between the appellant No.2 and Sajjanben on the ground that the son of appellant No.2 and brother-in-law of Sajjanben namely Budho was remained unmarried and the children of Sajjanben and appellant No.1 got married, though said Budho happens to be uncle of the children of said Sajjanben and appellant No.1. At that time, the appellant No.1 came in drunken condition and he had beaten the said Sajjanben and therefore, as a last resort, said Sajjanben consumed poison and died. Therefore, the complaint for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 114 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants.
3. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded, panchnama was drawn and accused were arrested. Against the appellants, charge-sheet was filed. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, same was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was numbered as Sessions Case No.103 of 2001.
4. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the appellants. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case against the appellants, the prosecution has produced documentary evidence and also examined total 12 witnesses before the trial Court and the defence side also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellants - accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which the appellants - accused have denied the case of the prosecution.
7. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad vide judgment and order dated 3.5.2002 and the appellants - accused were convicted and sentence to the charge levelled against him under Sections 498(A), 114 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, as stated above.
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present appellants has preferred this appeal.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Sejpal, for the appellants fairly submitted that he is not arguing this matter on merits, but simply he is arguing the matter on the issue of sentence imposed upon appellant No.2 - Kashiben. He submitted that appellant No.2, lady accused is now aged about 76 years old and she is suffering from several diseases. He submitted that her undergone period in jail is one week, but, considering the age and health condition of the appellant No.2, the undergone period of the appellant No.2 may be considered as sentence.
10. The learned APP Mr. H.L. Jani for the State submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly imposed the conviction and sentence upon the appellants after considering the evidence on record and therefore, order impugned is not required to be interfered by this Court. Therefore, Appeal is required to be dismissed.
11. I have perused the judgment and order and reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge. I have also perused the record of the case and also considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties. After considering the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held the appellants guilty and awarded sentence to the appellants. The appellants were ordered to undergo imprisonment as stated above. Learned advocate Mr. Sejpal fairly stated that he is not arguing this matter on merit, but simply he submitted that considering the ill-health and old age of the appellant No.2 being lady accused, the undergone period may be considered as sentence. Therefore, considering the age of the appellant No.2, she is more than 75 years and is suffering from several diseases, I am of the opinion that so far the appellant No.2 - Kashiben Juwansinh Dabhi is concerned, the undergone sentence is required to be treated as sentence.
12. In view of the above, the Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 3.5.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Special Case No.103 of 2001, is hereby modified to the extent that the sentence, which the appellant No.2 - Kashiben Juwansinh Dabhi has undergone, shall be treated as sentence. But so far the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant No.1, the same is hereby confirmed. If the appellant No.1 is on bail, he is directed to surrender before the Jail Authority within four weeks from the date of this order. The appellant No.2 is on bail. Her bail bond shall stand discharged. Since the appellant No.2 is on bail, no order in respect to setting her at liberty is passed.
Rest of the judgment of the learned Sessions Court shall remain unaltered. Bail bonds, if any, shall stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.) ynvyas Top