(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.726 of 2003, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant – Accused No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'A-1') for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 354, and 506(2) of IPC and has imposed sentence of life-imprisonment with the fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, imprisonment for two years with the fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and imprisonment of two years with the fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 506(2) of IPC and all the punishments are to be undergone concurrently.

2. As per the prosecution case, the complaint was registered with Morva Police Station on 7.1.2003, vide C.R. No.2/03 for the offence under Sections 354, 307, 506(2) and 114 of IPC by the victim, Naynaben. As per the complainant, on 6.1.2003, during recess time she and her brother Suresh both had gone to hill-forest for collecting bor, (one of the eatable nuts as being naturally grown in the hill-forest) and at that time, when the complainant was collecting the bor, A-1, who is the brother-in-law of the son of A-4 came and he tried to outrage modesty of the complainant, but as Suresh, brother of the complainant came in between, she was saved by Suresh. Thereafter, when the mother of the victim scolded A-4, he gave a threat to kill the complainant and family members. The next day, at about 7 O'clock when the complainant went to the backyard of the house for throwing waste, suddenly A-1 came running with the bottle containing kerosene and the same was sprinkled over her clothes and he threw ignited match-stick to her and she was set ablaze. Since the complainant started shouting, her mother and her brother Suresh came running and sprinkled water all over the deceased victim and tried to save her by covering with bedding (godada). Thereafter, she was shifted to Government Hospital at Godhra and when she was in conscious condition, the complaint was lodged.

3. The aforesaid complaint was investigated. In the meantime, the victim succumbed to injuries on 18.1.2003 and, therefore, the charge under Section 302 was added. Ultimately, the charge-sheet was filed against all the accused namely;

Dilip – A-1, Ramesh – A-2, Mansukh – A-3, Parvat – A-4. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter framed the charges against A-1 for the offence under Section 354, Section 302 and Section 506(2) of IPC and against A-2, A-3 and A-4, the charges were framed under Section 354 read with 114 of IPC. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and 24 documentary evidences were produced by the prosecution and the details of oral as well as documentary evidence are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 5 of the judgment. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which all the accused denied charge against them and in the further statement it was stated by A-1 that since he was cultivating the land with Parvat Mansukh – A-4 belonging to Kankuben and the same was demanded back, and there was a dispute, he has been falsely implicated. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution as well as the defence and found A-1 as guilty for the offences under Section 302, 354, and 506 of IPC, but the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against A-2, A-3 and A-4. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, he acquitted A-2 to A-4 for the alleged offences. The learned Sessions Judge heard the matter for imposition of sentence and ultimately by the impugned judgment as referred to herein above, has convicted A-1 – Appellant herein and imposed sentence. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.

4. We have considered the entire evide