KSHITIJ R. VYAS, J.

( 1 ) HARPALSINH Pravinsinh Zala and Jamba Pravinsinh Zala, the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased Pavanba have filed Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 1996 challenging the judgment and order dated 10. 5. 1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1994 convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. 00, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment of three months. It may be stated that the learned Judge acquitted both the accused by giving benefit of doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304 (B) read with Section 34 and/or 114 of IPC. The learned trial Judge also acquitted Pravinsinh C. Zala, accused No. 2 father-in-law of the deceased for the offences punishable under Section 302, 498-A, 304 (B) read with Section 34 and/or Section 114 of IPC. The State of Gujarat has filed Criminal Appeal No. 517 of 1996 challenging the said order of acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, and 304 (B) of IPC so far as accused Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned and the order of acquittal passed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 304 (B) of IPC so far as accused No. 2 is concerned.

( 2 ) SINCE both these appeals arise out the order dated 10. 5. 1996 passed in one Sessions Case, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case, in nutshell, can be stated as under:the informant - Bharatsinh Keshubhai filed a complaint on 20/12/1993 (Exh. 21) before the PSI of Joravarnagar, at Surendranagar. After giving the details about his status and his brothers and sisters, he has stated that his two sisters are married at village Katuda in Surendranagar District. His sister, Taraba, PW-6 got married to Anirudhsinh, PW-5 and his younger sister Pavanba (deceased) got married in the same village with Harpalsinh, accused No. 1. He brought Pavanba to his village Dhokada six months after her marriage for the purpose of her delivery. Pavanba thereafter stayed with him for about 12 months. It is alleged that the deceased told him that she was not having a happy married life. All the accused were giving her mental as well as physical torture and were also beating her and they were not allowing her to go to her elder sisters house. The deceased also informed him that accused No. 1 demanded a bigger gold chain instead of a small one and also demanded a wristlet. After eight months of her delivering a baby girl, accused No. 1 came to his village and took the deceased with him. The complainant at that time, gave a golden ring and also gave presents (Jiyana ). The complainant further stated that his uncles son Ranjitsinh, PW-7 had visited the house of the in-laws of the deceased at Katuda and he also noticed that deceased was not treated properly by her in-laws. According to the complainant, on the previous day, i. e. 19. 12. 1993, his brother-in-law, Anirudhsinh, PW-5 came to his field at about 6. 30 p. m. and informed him that his sister Pavanba had expired and that he had come to call him. He also told him that on 18. 12. 1993, his wife Taraba had gone to inquire about the health of the deceased and then she came to know that the deceased had gone to Surendranagar for medical treatment. In fact, Anirudhsinh, PW-5 had also gone to inquire about the health of the deceased on the same day in the evening. The deceased was quite alright when he saw her and he did not see any serious ailment. On the same night, at about 11. 45, Accused No. 2- Pravinsinh had come to call him. He accordingly went to the house where the deceased was found dead in the room. He saw some nail injuries on the face of the deceased. After instructing the in-laws to keep the dead body of the deceased in the same state, he had gone to inform the complainant. The complainant thereafter, in co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document