MAHESH @ MUNNO CHHAGANBHAI JETHWA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2005 passed by learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Veraval, in Sessions Case No.19 of 2004, whereby the appellants-accused were convicted for the offence under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as "IPC" for short). By the impugned judgment, for offence under Section 498 (A), the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of five months was imposed. For offence under Section 306, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of five months was imposed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in short is that accused no.1 is the husband of deceased Kiran @ Hansaben and accused nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-inlaw of the deceased. Accused no.1 had married the deceased on 22.11.2003 and it is the case of the prosecution that the accused were having doubt over the character of the deceased. It is also alleged that they used to taunt her and were saying that you did not bring anything in dowry. Accordingly, the accused were causing physical and mental harassment to the deceased. It is alleged by the prosecution that she consumed acid and by pouring kerosene over her body, committed suicide. With these allegations, complaint was lodged by the complainant before Talala Police and on the basis of such complaint, police started investigation. The case was registered as I-C.R.No.62/2003 and as there was sufficient evidence against the accused, the accused were arrested and charge sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. As the case was sessions triable, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) Mr.S.B.Tolia for Mr.Mayank Chavda, learned advocate for the appellants vehemently submitted that as per the prosecution case, the deceased died due to consumption of acid but no such substance is found in FSL report. Learned counsel has also submitted that marriage life of the deceased is ten years and whatever dispute has arisen is after eight years of marriage life and till then there was no dispute. While inviting the attention of the Court to oral evidence of various witnesses, he has stated that oral evidence of relatives of the deceased is not trustworthy. According to him, the evidence of the near relatives is not direct evidence but it is hearsay evidence. He has also submitted that even Jitubhai has not made any allegations regarding illicit relationship. Learned counsel, Shri Tolia has also submitted that those letters were not seized during investigation and it was produced for the first time during recording of evidence.