STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DHANJI NEKAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the appellant ­ State of Gujarat against the Judgment and order dated 27.06.1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No. 229 of 1993, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents ­ original accused from the charges alleged against them. Against the said Judgment, the appellant ­ State has filed present Appeal against respondents ­ original accused.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that the daughter of the complainant was married with respondent No.1 ­ original accused No.1 and after marriage the victim was residing with the respondents ­ accused at Samratnagar, Isanpur, Ahmedabad. On 13.6.1992 the complainant received information that his daughter (victim) received burns injuries. THErefore, the complainant went to the house of Sita where he saw that Sita was dead. THEreafter, after funeral, on 14.6.1992 at 14.00 the complaint was filed against the respondents ­ accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 of I.P Code before Vatva Police Station, vide CR No. 357 of . 1992.

(3.) LEARNED APP appearing on behalf of the appellant, has , contended that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is without appreciating the facts and evidence on the record. He has read the charge and the oral evidence of the witnesses and contended that from the oral as well as the documentary evidence, it is clearly established that due to mental and physical harassment by the respondents, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide and, therefore, the learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the respondents ­ accused from the charges alleged against them. He has contended that looking to the evidence produced on the record, it clearly appears that the deceased has committed suicide at the instance of respondents ­ accused. He has also read the provision of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act and contended that the presumption is also required to be drawn against the present respondents ­ accused. He has, therefore, contended that looking to the over all evidence, prima-facie, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has committed grave error of acquitting the respondents from the charges alleged against them. He, therefore, contended that the Judgment and order of the trial Court is bad in law and perverse and, therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.