STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAYANTILAL AMTHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant State has preferred this appeal under section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order of acquittal dated 29/4/2004 passed by learned JMFC, Gandhinagar, in Criminal Case no. 6790 of 1997 acquitting the respondents / original accused of the charge of committing offence punishable under section 498-A, 506(2) read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal deserve to be set out as under. The original complainant, wife of accused no.1 and daughter in law of accused no.2 & 3 and sister-in-law accused no.5 was constrained to present complaint in writing to learned JMFC, Gandhinagar which came to be registered as Inquiry Case No. 356 of 1996 against five persons, namely husband- accused no.1, father-in-law accused no.2, mother-in-law- accused no.3, brother-in-law- accused no.4 and one Ms. Parul- accused no.5, alleged illegally wedded wife of accused no.1. It is alleged in the complaint that on account of illicit relationship, accused no.5, accused no.1 and other accused tortured her and threatened her with ending her life if she would not divorce accused no.1. Said complaint was presented on 26/11/1996. Learned JMFC ordered investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and the concerned police station accordingly registered the complaint as M. Case No. 90 of 1996 and after the investigation was over, report was filed against all the five, wherein the accused no.5 was shown to be accused not available for trial, and her name was figuring in column no.2. The Court on 13/8/1998 framed charge against the four accused namely husband - accused no.1, father-in-law- accused no.2, mother-in-law- accused no.3 and brother-in-law accused no.4 that on 26/5/1996 at 22.30 hours all the accused went to the complainant's place located in Gandhinagar and tortured and threatened her and intimated her that if she does not give divorce she would be killed. Thus in this way they committed offence punishable under section 498-A, 506(2) r/w section 114 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The prosecution examined four witnesses, namely complainant herself, mother of the complainant, sister of the complainant and investigating officer. The court after perusing the testimony of the witnesses and appreciating the rival contentions came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case and hence acquitted the accused of the charge of committing offence under section 498-A, 506(2) r/w 114 of I.P. Code vide its order dated 29/4/2004, which is impugned in this appeal under section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code.