CR.A/63320/2002 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 633 of 2002 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 12332 of 2008 In CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 633 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ====================================== 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== RAJESH KANJIBHAI OZA & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ====================================== Appearance : MR.RAJESH B SONI for Appellant Ms Mita Panchal, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and CR.A/63320/2002 2/3 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 05/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) The present appeal has been filed by the appellants – original accused against the judgment and order dated 31st July 2002 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.297 of 1996. By the said judgment, the learned Judge was pleased to convict the appellants – original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304B read with Section 114, 201 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The husband – appellant No.1 and appellant No.3 – mother-in-law have been convicted under Section 304B of the IPC and they are ordered to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000 in default, to further undergo SI for three months. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The principal argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no recent demand of dowry as defined under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. From the perusal of the record we find that demand of dowry is not established because, there was no such demand which was very recent. The marriage was of 3 years old and therefore demand of dowry cannot be said to be existing. That leaves us with the question as to how the deceased has died. The question of death by electrocution is not established beyond reasonableness. What is established is that she died of burns of kerosene. There is not evidence as to who poured kerosene. Possibility of deceased burning herself cannot be ruled out. The husband can be held guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC for driving the deceased to commit suicide. In that background, the case of the mother-in-law is left out. In these circumstances, we are prepared to CR.A/63320/2002 3/3 JUDGMENT acquit mother-in-law under Section 304B of the IPC and alter the conviction under Section 304B to Section 306 of IPC qua the husband – appellant No.1 for driving the wife to commit suicide. Now comes the question of sentence. Sentence of 7 years' RI is considered sufficient with a fine of Rs.1,000. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is altered from Section 304-B of IPC to Section 306 of IPC qua Accused No.1 – Rajeshbhai Kanjibhai Oza, husband, and is sentenced to 7 years' RI with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, he shall undergo RI for further six months. Accused No.4, Ratanben, w/o Kanjibhai Shankarbhai Oza, mother-in-law, is acquitted under Section 304B of IPC. The conviction under Section 498A to both the accused Nos.1 and 4 is maintained. The sentence u/s 498A qua accused No.4 - Ratanben, w/o Kanjibhai Shankarbhai Oza is altered to the period of sentence she undergone. The conviction u/s 201 of IPC to both the accused Nos.1 and 4 is maintained. The sentence u/s 201 of IPC qua accused No.4 - Ratanben, w/o Kanjibhai Shankarbhai Oza is altered to the period of sentence she undergone. In view of the disposal of the main appeal itself, Criminal Misc. Application No.12332 of 2008 filed for bail does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. (Bhagwati Prasad, J.) (Bankim N Mehta, J.) *mohd