STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HIRASING SHAMBHUSING SENGAR
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
STATE OF GUJARAT
HIRASING SHAMBHUSING SENGAR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE State of Gujarat preferred this appeal under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short 'cr. P C'] challenging the order of sentence passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari in the judgment and order dated 20/9/1996 in Sessions Case No. 72/1994. The Addl. Sessions Judge, while convicting the respondent no. 1, who was original accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code [ipc], awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment [ri] of 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of 3 months and awarded sentence for the offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC, the RI of 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months. So far as the respondent no. 2, who was accused no. 2 in the aforesaid Sessions case is concerned, the learned trial Judge convicted her for the offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC and she was sentenced to undergo RI of 30 months and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months. . The State of Gujarat preferred this appeal under section 377 of the Cr. P C feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Judge, stating that the sentence awarded to both the respondents is too lenient and quite insufficient.
(2.) THE prosecution case in nut shell, is that one Sunaynaben, sister of the complainant Babbusing Chandrapalsing, married respondent no. 1 on 9/5/1993. After her marriage, she went to reside with her husband. It is the case of the prosecution that her husband - respondent no. 1 was ill-treating her and was causing physical and mental cruelty to her. That despite the fact that respondent no. 1 married Sunaynaben, yet he had kept the respondent no. 2 - Sunitaben as his concubine. Despite the fact that Sunaynaben strongly objected to it, yet the respondent no. 1 continued his illicit relation with the respondent no. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 4/5/1994 at about 15. 00 hours when Sunaynaben was alone in the house of her husband, she set herself ablaze and committed suicide. That at that time, while going out from the house, the respondent no. 1 had locked the door of the house from outside and, therefore, hearing the shout and cry of Sunaynaben from the house, to save her, the door of the house was required to be broken open. Sunaynaben was brought to hospital and she was declared dead. Brother of Sunaynaben, named Babbusing Chandrapalsinh lodged FIR against both the respondents in connection with these offences before the police. The police started investigation and after completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet against both the respondents in the Court of the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Navsari. As the offence under section 306 of the IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Ld. Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 72/1994.
(3.) THE Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh. 3 against both the accused. Since the respondents accused did not plead guilty, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. After completion of the evidence and after appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge delivered the impugned judgment and order and convicted both the accused and awarded sentence for the offences proved against them as referred hereinabove.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.