SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A. J. DESAI, SAMIR J. DAVE, JJ.
BABUBHAI @ BHALIYO SOMABHAI VANKAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.489 of 2013
Decided On : 17-11-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : MR PRATIK B BAROT
For The Respondent: MR DHARMESH DEVNANI, APP.

Point of Law : Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they call for harsh punishment.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 300,302,313,307,452 and 504 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – 374(2) - Offense of murder – Attempt to murder - Culpable homicide - One alleged in the morning, when she was all alone in her house, appellant who is distance related to her in-laws entered her house in a drunken condition and when she raised questions about his conduct about entering house in such condition, he got irritated and poured kerosene on her which was lying in kitchen and set her ablaze by matchstick pursuant to which she started burning and at that time, appellant ran away from her house and when she came out of house, her relatives tried to extinguish fire and immediately, she was shifted to Godhra General Hospital - At that time, Medical Officer of General Hospital, Godhra handed over a letter to son of the deceased, addressed by him to Police Inspector, Town Police Station for recording of complaint which was taken by the son to concerned Police Station - Whether or not he had intention.

Finding of the Court :

Even assuming that accused had no intention to cause death of deceased, act of accused falls under clause Fourthly of Section 300 IPC that is the act of causing injury so imminently dangerous where it will in all probability cause death - Any person of average intelligence would have knowledge that pouring of kerosene and setting her on fire by throwing a lighted matchstick is so imminently dangerous that in all probability such an act would cause injuries causing death - Considering ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and for the reasons stated, court are of the considered opinion that submission made on behalf of the appellant to alter conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC cannot be accepted – Court are in complete agreement with reasons assigned and conclusion reached by learned Trial Court in impugned judgment and order of conviction – concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below are based on evidence and we see no infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference”. Therefore, after pouring kerosene on the deceased and thereafter setting her ablaze, thereafter merely because the accused might have tried to extinguish the fire will not take the case out of the clutches of clause fourthly of Section 300 of the IPC. The act of the accused pouring kerosene on the deceased and thereafter setting her ablaze by matchstick is imminently dangerous which, in all probability, will cause death. Therefore, the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

Result: Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

A. J. DESAI, J.

1. By way of the present appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short), the appellant – original accused has challenged the judgement and order of conviction dated 28.12.2012 passed by learned 8th (Adhoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Sessions Case No.3 of 2012 by which, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and has been imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one year simple imprisonment as well as under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of three months.

2. The appeal came to be admitted vide oral order dated 18.4.2013. The Registry has received the records and proceedings along with paper-book from the learned Trial Court and the same has been placed before us for perusal.

3. The short facts emerge from the record are as under :-

    3.1 That on 29.9.2011, one Laliben @ Lilaben wife of Punjabhai Mulabhai Vankar, resident of Samli Limda Faliyu, Tal. Godhra alleged that at around 10 O'clock in the morning, when she was all alone in her house, the appellant who is distance related to her in-laws entered her house in a drunken condition and when she raised questions about his conduct about entering the house in such condition, he got irritated and poured kerosene on her which was lying in the kitchen and set her ablaze by matchstick pursuant to which she started burning and at that time, the appellant ran away from her house and when she came out of the house, her relatives tried to extinguish the fire and immediately, she was shifted to Godhra General Hospital. Upon receiving the said news, her son i.e. Jagdishbhai Punjabhai Vankar and her husband i.e. Punjabhai Mulabhai Vankar immediately reached the Hospital. At that time, the Medical Officer of General Hospital, Godhra handed over a letter to the son of the deceased, addressed by him to the Police Inspector, Godhra Town Police Station for recording of the complaint which was taken by the son of Laliben to the concerned Police Station and thereafter, PSO from Godhra Town Police Station came to the Hospital and recorded the FIR and the same was registered as FIR being I C.R. No.223 of 2011 against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

3.2 Upon registration of the FIR, the appellant came to be arrested on the next day i.e. 30.9.2011. On 3.10.2011, Laliben @ Lilaben wife of Punjabhai Mulabhai Vankar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased) succumbed to the injuries and accordingly, offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the FIR.

3.3 Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before learned Magisterial Court. Since the offences are triable by learned Sessions Judge, the concerned learned Magistrate committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge.

3.4 A charge came to be framed against the appellant at Exh.2. Charges levelled against the accused are denied by the accused and therefore, the learned Trial Court proceeded with the trial. In all, 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the case whereas the defence did not examine any witness in his support. The prosecution also produced various documents like dying declaration of the deceased, P. M. Note, Inquest Panchnama, FSL Report and other relevant documents etc. Thereafter, further statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. The accused denied the case put forward by the prosecution.

3.5 The learned Sessions Judge, after con

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top