Maniben vs State Of Gujarat

1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat holding that the case of the appellant herein is covered under Clause (4) of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the IPC') and, consequent thereto convicting her under Section 302 of IPC for murder of her daughter-in-law -Santokben alias Muktaben and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life. However, by the said order, imposition of the fine of Rs. 3,000/- by the Sessions Court was set aside. Earlier the Sessions Court held the appellant guilty for the offence of Section 304, Part II of IPC and convicted and sentenced her for 5 years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in lieu to undergo further imprisonment of one year.

2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the parties and issues involved, it would be necessary to set out brief facts of the case which gave rise to the present criminal appeal.

Deceased Santokben was married to Parshottambhai Patel of village Jamvadi, Taluka Gondal, District Rajkot. After the marriage she gave birth to three children, who were all girls. The appellant herein, who is the mother-in-law of Santokben, was dissatisfied with Santokben because she was not able to bear a boy. According to prosecution on 29.11.1984 at about 7.00 a.m. the deceased with her youngest daughter Minaxi had gone to fetch water and while she was returning with water pot on her head and carrying Minaxi with the other hand, the appellant came and threw a burning wick made of rags on the deceased and thereby set fire to the terylene clothes put on by the deceased. The deceased brought down her minor daughter whom she was carrying and managed to reach her house with the burn injuries.

4. After conclusion of the investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. As the offence under Section 302 of IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, District Rajkot, for trial. Charges were framed against the appellant under section 302 of IPC, to which she pleaded not guilty.

8. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 03.04.2001 held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had misconstrued the provisions of Section 300 and Part-II of Section 304 of IPC and thereby arrived at a wrong finding that the case of the appellant was a case within the meaning of Part II Section 304 of IPC. The High Court also held that the case of the accused is covered under Clause (4) of Section 300 of IPC and, therefore, passed an order of conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC for murder of her daughter-in-law and sentenced her to imprisonment for life. However, the fine of Rs. 3,000/- imposed by the Sessions Court was set aside. Hence, the appellant filed the present appeal.

15. We find that the view taken by the trial court was a cogent and plausible view and, therefore, we hold that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court is justified. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the appellant is of 85 years of age and had undergone the sentence imposed by the trial court under the provisions of Section 304 Part II of IPC, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant imposed by the High Court of Gujarat and restore the judgment and order passed by the trial court. Since the appellant has already undergone the sentence imposed by the trial court she shall not be re- arrested unless required in connection with any other case. Bail bonds shall stand discharged. This shall not be the precedent for other cases.

16. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.