Dipak Ratanbhai Samant vs State Of Gujarat

[1] Learned advocate Mr.Krunal Shahi for the appellant accused states that the appellant­ accused has already undergone substantial part of the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, therefore, the present appeal is taken up for final disposal today.

[2] The present appeal is preferred by the appellant accused against the judgment and order dated 13.05.2016 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.160 of 2013, whereby the appellant accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, and to pay fine of Rs.5000/­, in default, further simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and to pay fine of Rs.5000/­, in default, further simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

[3] The short facts giving rise to the present case are that on 9.06.2013 at around 3'O' clock in the afternoon, when deceased namely Jayshriben (hereinafter referred as "deceased") was alone at her home. While cooking, she received burn injuries and due to that smoke was coming out from the room. Therefore, people who stayed nearby gathered there, and when, they came there, they saw that the door of the said room was locked from inside. Thereafter, they broke open the door and entered in the room and sprinkled water on the deceased and extinguished the fire. Thereafter, son of the house owner namely Gopal Bhagawandas Sanchani informed police, and thereafter an AD case was registered being Accidental Death No. 34 of 2013.

[4] In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge­sheet against the accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

4.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.

4.2 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.

[5] Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant­ accused has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court.

[6] By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant accused has mainly contended that the learned trial Cort has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective, and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such.

[7] Mr.Krunal Shahi, learned advocate for the appellant has taken this Court to the entire record and proceedings. He submitted that the case was also unusual wherein wife committed suicide, though learned trial Court has awarded full punishment i.e. R.I. for 10 years provided under Section 306 of the IPC. He further submitted that the appellant accused has already undergone imprisonment for a period of five years and seven months. He further submitted that if this Court is of the opinion for upholding the conviction, then he has urged that leniency may be shown in reducing the punishment awarded by the learned trial Court, as such. He, therefore, urged to acquit the accused or in alternative to reduce the sentence.

[8] Per contra, Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned APP has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court so far as it relates to conviction of the appellant­accused. She submitted that marriage life span was for only one year. She further submitted that taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has rightly inflicted the punishment, which needs no interference by this Court.

[9] This Court has heard Mr.Krunal Shahi, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned APP for the respondent State.

[10] This Court has gone through the rival submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties as well as also gone through the impugned judgment and perused the materials available on record.

[11] On overall evaluation of the present case, it appears that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused but inflicted maximum punishment as prescribed in the Indian Penal Code for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal code, i.e. rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine, therefore, this Court deems it fit to reduce the sentence imposed by learned trial Court upon appellant­accused, while upholding conviction so recorded.

[12] In view of the above discussion, the following final order is passed.

Criminal Appeal No.1116 of 2016 filed by the appellant­accused stands partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.160 of 2013 is modified to the extent that conviction so recorded by the learned trial Court is sustained. However, this Court deems it fit to reduce the sentence so imposed upon the appellant­ accused from ten years rigorous imprisonment to six years rigorous imprisonment with the benefit of sett­off, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Rest of the judgment remains unaltered. R&P be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.

ORDER IN CRMINNAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2019.

In view of the order passed in the main matter i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1116 of 2016, the present application does not survive.

Hence, the present Criminal Misc. Application stands disposed of.