STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAJUBHAI NATHAUBHAI BARAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH served, but nobody is appeared on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the Appeal is taken up for final hearing on today. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 7.3.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No.383 of 1991, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: He deceased Nalini was married with tHe accused about four years ago from tHe date of incident, as per tHe Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage, tHe accused and his wife Nalini were residing with tHe parents of tHe accused at Maninagar, but after two months, tHe accused and his wife started residing separately in otHer rented premises at Bapunagar. THe wife of tHe accused Nalini gave birth to one female child namely Nayna Alias Nehal. As per tHe case of prosecution, wHenever his daughter Nalini visited at Her parental house, sHe used to complain about physical assault and mental torture by Her husband. On every occasion, tHe complainant used to persuade and send Her back with tHe hope that some improvement will take place in future. But tHe accused continued to caused such harassment to tHe deceased. THe accused was not giving money to his wife Nalini and tHerefore, Nalini used to demand money from Her fatHer - complainant for maintaining Herself and for household. As alleged in tHe complaint, a day before tHe incident, Nalini visited tHe complainant and told him that tHe accused had some illicit relationship with some otHer girl, and tHerefore, tHe accused was physically assaulting Her by saying that sHe was not liked by accused. As alleged, on 12.6.1991 at about 6:00 p.m., tHe complainant was informed by tHe neighbour of tHe accused that Nalini had received burn injuries by catching fire. THe complainant and his wife went to tHe house of Nalini, but tHe daughter Nalini was admitted in Shardaben Municipal General Hospital for medical treatment. THerefore, tHe complainant and his wife went to tHe said Hospital and tHey met tHeir daughter. At that time, Nalini is alleged to have told Her fatHer that tHere was some quarrel between Her and Her husband. As per tHe complainant, his daughter Nalini was preparing tea on a stove at that time, tHe accused had thrown pincer on stove, which resulted into small blast and tHereby his daughter received burn injuries and ultimately, sHe died on 15.6.1991 at about 8:40 p.m.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri for the appellant - State read the charge at Exhibit 1 and submitted that the from the charges levelled against the accused, the case is proved against the accused by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. She also submitted that from the bare reading of the complaint, it is proved that the accused is abettor or instigator. She read the evidence of P.W.1 - Ramdas Kisandas and submitted that from evidence of the complainant, it is established that the deceased Nalini complained to the complainant about the harassment caused by the accused. The accused had illicit relation with some other girl and this witness stated in evidence that Nalini was burnt by the accused. This witness also admitted the contents made in the complaint in his oral evidence. Learned APP read the evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Vimal Goswami at Exhibit 14, who had carried out Postmortem of the deceased and looking to the nature of the injuries, it can be said that the accused had played active role in the commission of the offence, as a result of which, the deceased committed suicide. She also submitted that during the trial, no independent witness was examined to support the case of defence. The accused was addicted of wine and gambling and therefore, he used to beat the deceased. She further submitted that the accused had illicit relation with other lady. As per her submission, learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present Appeal.