STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAYESHBHAI LAKHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.07.2004, rendered by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Veraval, in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2001, whereby both the respondents (original accused) have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2), 498 -A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution as narrated in the complaint is that the marriage of Sheetalben alias Savitaben, daughter of the complainant Radhaben, took place with respondent No.1 on 27.02.2001. The day after the marriage, as per the local custom, the deceased went to her parental home. On the next day, respondent No.1 came to the house of the complainant to pick up the deceased and take her to another village, where they had both been invited. Both the deceased and respondent No.1 departed together from the house of the complainant. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased informed the complainant that on the first night of her wedding, her husband did not call her. He told the deceased that he was in an illicit relationship with respondent No.2, who was residing near his house. He also told the deceased that he had not wanted to marry her but was forced to do so, by his father. According to the recital in the complaint, the deceased told respondent No.1 not to maintain illicit relations with respondent No.2, upon which respondent No.1 inflicted kick and fist blows upon the deceased. The next morning, respondent No.2 told the deceased that she was maintaining an illicit relationship with respondent No.1, which is known to the whole village, therefore, the deceased should not say anything to respondent No.1 as she has just come recently. It is further the case of the prosecution that the deceased told respondent No.2 that respondent No.1 is her husband and she could say anything to him, upon which respondent No.2 started abusing the deceased. The complainant consoled the deceased by saying that things will improve soon, as only two days have elapsed after the wedding and that the deceased should maintain courage. Thereafter, the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home at village Mandorana. It is stated in the complaint that on 04.03.2001, at about 9:30 PM, the son of the complainant telephoned the deceased who told him to come and take her away from the matrimonial home, immediately. This information was conveyed by him to the complainant. Thereafter, at about 3:30 AM, respondent No.1 telephoned one Patel Naranbhai Akbari and informed him that the deceased had gone away from the house. PW -3, father of the deceased, then telephoned respondent No.1 to enquire about the deceased. Thereafter, PW -3 Rambhai Dhanabhai, PW -2 - Dhirubhai Rambhai, brother of the deceased, Balu, another brother of the deceased, and Bhupat, brother of the complainant, went to Village Mandorana. The next morning, after making enquiries, they came to know that the dead body of Savita (deceased) was found in a well belonging to Patel Devraj Kala. Her ornaments were found on the margin of the well. According to the complainant, upon hearing of the death of her daughter, she fainted and remained unconscious for about three days. Thus, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased committed suicide as she could not bear the fact that her husband ­ respondent No.1, had illicit relations with respondent No.2, due to which he did not like her and had beaten her..

(3.) THE Trial Court framed necessary charges against the respondents which were read over and explained to them. They denied their guilt and claimed to be tried.