UPENDRASINGH VISHWANATHSINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Upendrasingh Vishwanathsingh Rajput
STATE OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellantoriginal accused against the judgment and order dated 2.3.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No.64 of 2012 whereby the appellant-original accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further RI for six months for the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and RI for three years with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for two months for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was given set off for the period undergone in jail.
(2.) Short facts of the case of the prosecution are that a complaint was filed by the complainant- Parassing Chadilalsing before Meghpar(Padana) Police Station being I.C.R.No.28 of 2012 against the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 306, 498-A and 114 of IPC alleging that his daughter-Priyanka, whose marriage was solemnized with the appellant, was residing with the appellant at Village Padana and on 9.5.2012 at 7 p.m., his daughter committed suicide due to mental and physical cruelty meted out to her by the appellant. In pursuance of the said complaint, investigation started and as there appeared prima facie case against the accused, a charge sheet was filed against him. Thereafter charge was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
2.1 To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The prosecution also relied on several documentary evidence numbering nine. After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.
2.2 On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, impugned judgment and order as aforesaid in the earlier part of this judgment was delivered giving rise to the present appeal.
(3.) Heard learned advocate, Mr. Amirkhan S. Pathan for Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the appellant-original accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. K.L.Pandya for the respondent-State of Gujarat.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.