STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DAHYAJI MANAJI THAKOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the appellantState of Gujarat, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.10.1998, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.60 of 1996, whereby, both the respondents ­ original accused, have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the case of the prosecution are that a complaint dated 22.10.1995 was made by PW1, Ramaji Jivaji Thakor at Pethapur Police Station which was registered as IC.R.No.157/1995. The complainant is the father of deceased Popatji. As per the complaint, the deceased was staying with the complainant at Adraj Village. The deceased was desirous of constructing a house on a portion of land which had come in his share. Whenever he tried to construct the house, accused No.1 Dahyaji Manaji Thakor, who was the uncle of the deceased and accused No.2, wife of accused No.1, were preventing him from doing so. The deceased used to say that if he would not construct the house, he would have nowhere to stay, and the accused used to taunt him by saying that as he is unmarried, he does not require a house. There is nobody to cry after him, therefore, he can jump into the well and die. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 19.10.1995, at about 8:00 pm, the deceased was arranging bricks at the scene of offence for construction of the house when the accused persons came there and told him to remove the bricks. A quarrel took place when the accused prevented the deceased from constructing the house. The deceased asked them where would he go if he did not construct the house, upon which the accused told him that he can jump into the Well. Upon these words uttered by the accused, the deceased went and jumped into the Well. The deceased was taken out from the Well and taken to the Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar, for treatment. From there, he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. However, during the same night, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that at the instigation meted out by the accused persons, the deceased committed suicide, by jumping into the Well.

(3.) IN support of the case of the prosecution, about seven witnesses were examined. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Judge explained to the accused, the statements appearing against them in the evidence and recorded their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The defence of the accused was simply denial. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the accused or was instigated to the point of committing suicide, on account of being prevented by the accused from constructing a house on his own land. Accordingly, the Trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the offences with which they were charged, giving rise to the filing of the present appeal.