Judgment

PALEKAR J.:- The appellants (1) Lallubhai Devchand Shah (2) Jayantilal Lallubhai Shah and (3) Bai Nathi were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad of the offence under Section 302-IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The Gujarat High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence in appeal. The present appeal has been filed by special leave.

2. Lallubhai is the father of Jayantilal and Bai Nathi is his wife. Together they lived in a house near the Jain Temple in village Poshina in Idar Taluka. District Sabarkantha. The village is a small village with a population of about 1500. At the relevant time the deceased Bai Sharda was about 22 years old and was also living with them. Sharda had been married to another son of Lallubhai named Amritlal in about 1962-63. She was the daughter of one Kachralal Kevaldas P. W. 10 who lived in another village named Mau which is about 7 or 8 miles from Poshina. Her husband Amritlal had been living in Bombay to earn his livelihood since before his marriage. Though Sharda was betrothed to Amritlal for many years before the marriage, the marriage seems to have been a failure because Amritlal did not show any affection for her. He used to come from Bombay to Poshina once in six months or a year for a stay of one or two days and did not think of taking her to Bombay. He did not also visit his father in-law s house at Mau. In or about 1964-65. Amritlal started giving tuition to one girl named Aruna in Bombay and in course of time formed an attachment for her. In 1967 they decided to marry but as Amritlal s wife was living they converted themselves to Islam and thus overcame the obstacle to marriage. Thereafter Amritlal and Aruna married on 16-11-1967 at Bombay and lived together as husband and wife. Aruna s brother thereafter filed a complaint at Bombay against Amritlal, but by about the first week of April, 1968 Aruna s relations were won over and nothing happened in the criminal case. The action of Amritlal seems to have met with the approval of his parents which we know from a letter written by Amritlal on 8-4-1968 Ext. 24. The letter has specifically referred to the criminal complaint against him and informed the family members about the changed attitude of Aruna s relations. It is in evidence that Aruna also used to write letters to the members of her husband s family. The same letter further shows Amritlal s general attitude towards his first wife Sharda. Sharda was living at that time with the accused having returned from her father s house a few months earlier. During all these six years of the marriage, Sharda lived sometimes with her father and sometimes with the accused. The letter reveals that Amritlal hated Sharda because he tells his father that if the matter were left of him, he would not have allowed Sharda to come to the house, let alone allow her to enter the kitchen. With a touch of sarcasm, he compliments his parents for giving shelter to Sharda due to social pressure. In short, Sharda had been abandoned by her husband Amritlal.

3. At about 10.00 A. M. on 18-4-1968 i.e. about a week after the letter Ext. 24 was received by the accused there was a quarrel between the mother-in-law Nathi Bai and Sharda. We do not know the nature of the quarrel. But it was not a serious one. One of the witnesses Bhudarlal P. W. 5 described it as the usual quarrel which takes place in many houses which are joint. That witness and P. W. 8 Bai Tara who came there on hearing the quarrel advised them not to quarrel and the matter ended there. At about 1.00 P.M. neighbours heard cries and shrieks from the house of the accused and ran to the place. They saw a ghastly sight there. In the hind-most room which is also described as the second room in the judgment of the High Court. Sharda has fallen on the ground naked with burns all over her body. She was in great pain but perfectly conscious. The neighbours who come there asked her what had happened and she told them th