IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 702 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓

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

BAJIBEN PRABHATBHAI PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR VIJAY H PATEL FOR HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Appellant.

MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 13/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2012 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Sessions Case No.161 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the appellant–accused has been sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo six months RI, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section

374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1 Deceased-sister of the complainant – Rayliben had some altercation with Surekhaben–daughter of Rameshbhai Bhagwanbhai Parmar’s wife with regard to picking up of the cotton irrigated in the agricultural field of the accused on 30/06/2009 and by keeping grudge over the said dispute and with an intention to commit murder of Rayliben, on 30/06/2009 at about 10:00 p.m., while the deceased– Rayliben was sleeping on the cot outside her house at Village Vatvatiya, Tal. Lunawada, Dist: Panchmahal, at that time, the accused brought kerosene in the steel vessel alongwith match-stick box and thereafter poured the same on the deceased and ignited her with match-stick resulted into burn injuries on the hands, leg and stomach and on her private part who succumbed to the said injuries on 11/07/2009 at 23:00 hours during the treatment at Godhra Civil Hospital. Thus, the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

2.2 Accordingly, FIR being CR No.82 of 2009 came to be registered with Kothamba Police Station. The Police after investigation charge- sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences before the learned JMFC, Court. However, as the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try offence under Section 302 IPC, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the learned Sessions Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent-accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided under Section 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondents-accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them as false and further stated that she is innocent and a false case has been filed against her. After examining the evidence, witness testimonies and submissions from both sides, the learned Sessions Court recorded the finding convicting the respondent-accused.

3. We have heard Mr.Vijay H Patel, learned Advocate for HL Patel Advocates for the appellant – convict and Mr.Bhargav Pandya learned APP for the respondent-State and minutely examined oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced before the learned Sessions Court concerned.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Patel appearing for the appellant– accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt and therefore, learned Sessions Court has erred in convicting the appellant – accused. He would further submit that though the husband of the deceased was very well avail