R/CR.A/299/2002 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 299 of 2002

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to

see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the

judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law

as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any

order made thereunder ?

==========================================================

MANUBHAI KHUSALBHAI VANKAR & 1 other(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MM TIRMIZI, ADVOCATE (1117) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2

MS MONALI, BHATT, APP (2) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1

==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

Date : 01/03/2019

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.

At

the

outset

of

hearing,

Mr.M.M.Tirmizi, learned advocate for the

appellants – accused submitted that though the

accused came to be charged for the offence

Page 1 of 3

R/CR.A/299/2002 JUDGMENT

punishable under sections 306 and 498-A of Indian

Penal Code and after conclusion of trial and

hearing, the appellants accused were found to be

guilty to the extent of offence punishable under

section 498-A of IPC only and he came to be

acquitted for the offence punishable under

section 306 of IPC. In view of the aforesaid

factual position, Mr.Tirmizi urged that the

incident in question occurred before 29 years

back and the husband is already retired as a

teacher and therefore, necessarily the dispute

was between the husband and wife and the wife of

the appellant husband had written several letters

indicating they were happily and normally

residing together.

2.

This Court has heard Mr.M.M.Tirmizi,

learned advocate for the appellants - accused and

Ms.Bhatt, learned APP for the State.

3.

This Court has minutely gone through the

Record and Proceedings. Though learned APP has

strongly opposed for reduction of sentence, but

the facts and circumstances of the case clearly

indicate that it was private dispute between the

appellants – accused on one hand and the wife on

the other-hand and in view of the letters

addressed by the deceased wife to the appellant

husband and mother-in-law clearly indicate that

she was unhappy with her fostering mother, due to

which, entire incident appears to have happened.

Be that as it may. Since several years are

Page 2 of 3

R/CR.A/299/2002 JUDGMENT

passed and in order to put an end to the matter,

this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the

sentence to the extent of the sentence already

undergone by the appellants while enhancing the

amount of fine payable by the husband at

Rs.30,000/- and mother-in-law at Rs.10,000/-.

4.

For the reasons recorded above, the

appeal succeeds partly. The impugned judgment and

order dated 24.1.2002 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions

Case No.176 of 1993 is confirmed so far it

relates to conviction. The appellants accused are

convicted and sentence is imposed to the extent

they have already undergone. The appellants

accused needs not to surrender before the jail

authority for serving the sentence. The appellant

husband is directed to deposit fine of

Rs.30,000/- and mother-in-law to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/- within a