Bhanubhai Kadvabhai Solanki vs State of Gujarat

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—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 u/s 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 u/s 498A

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 & 498A 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 u/s 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 498A of I.P.

Code and awarded sentence as naratted here in 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 u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 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.