STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NANDKISHOR @ DADUVA DEVDIN DUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 30.9.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad in Sessions Case No.16 of 1991, whereby he has acquitted the respondents of the charges levelled against them.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the accused No.1 ­ Nandkishor alias Daduva Devdin Dube was married to Sunayana, sister of the first informant ­ Kunjbihari Ramvilas, about seven years prior to the incident. The accused No.1 and Sunayana used to reside at Chanod Colony, Vapi Udhyognagar and the accused No.1 had maintained illicit relations with the accused No.2 on account of which, Sunayana, wife of the accused No.1 was subjected to physical and mental harassment which she was unable to tolerate, and hence, on 2.7.1990, she consumed poison and committed suicide. In connection with the said incident, a first information report came to be lodged against both the accused before the Vapi Udhyognagar Police Station being I - C.R. No.72/1990 for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 306, 34 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequent thereto, investigation came to be carried out and a charge-sheet came to be submitted in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi, who committed the same to the Court of Sessions, where the same came to be registered as Sessions Case No.16 of 1991.

(3.) MR . H. K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor drew the attention of the court to the record and proceedings of the case and more particularly to the depositions of the witnesses, namely, the first informant who is the brother of the deceased as well as the depositions of the other independent witnesses like Harishkumar Jankivallabh Vyas, a neighbour of the accused and Fulaben Gaurishankar, another neighbour of the accused, to submit that the prosecution had duly established that the accused No.1 was maintaining illicit relations with the accused No.2 who was residing with him at his house. That the deceased wife was subjected to undue mental and physical harassment as she was required to stay with the accused No.1 in the same house where he was also keeping the accused No.2 and maintaining illicit relations with her. It was submitted that such conduct of the accused would certainly fall within the ambit of "cruelty" as envisaged under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and would also constitute abetment to commit suicide as envisaged under section 306 of the IPC. Under the circumstances, the learned Judge was not justified in holding that the prosecution had not proved the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.