CHAUHAN KANUJI JIVANJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANTS are original accused No.1 and accused No.2 respectively. They came to be convicted for the offences under section 498A read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one month by judgment and order dated 23.10.2003 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Reference Case No. 92 of 2002. The said conviction and sentence came to be confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, Third Fast Track Court in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2003 decided on 11.11.2005. The present Revision Application under section 397 read with section 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is directed against the said judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) ONE Jiluji Keshaji Solanki of village Hebuva, Taluka and District Mehsana, who was father of the deceased, filed a complaint (Exh.22) on 25.10.2001 against the applicants, who were the husband and mother-in-law of complainant's daughter Hetal. The prosecution case based on that complaint was that the accused persons used to harass his daughter, which led her to commit suicide by burning herself. According to the complaint, marriage of Hetal with accused No.1 was solemnized about two years back. Deceased used to be taunted for not doing household work by accused persons, and therefore, she committed suicide at the matrimonial place, alleged the complainant. The complaint was registered with Vasai Police Station at C.R. I-110/2001 for the offences punishable under section 498A, 306 and 114 IPC.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the applicant submitted that the conviction under section 498A read with section 114 IPC recorded against the applicants-accused was not sustainable in law because there was no evidence of cruelty having been meted out to the deceased by the accused persons. It was submitted that the concept of cruelty for the purpose of making out offence under section 498A IPC has a definite requirement in law. According to him, where the conduct is harrasive, persistent and grave in nature, then only it would amount to cruelty. Referring to the evidence on record, he submitted that what was coming out was only a single incident, and at the most few solitary incidents of the alleged harassment, and the same could not be treated as sufficient to sustain the charge and conviction for the offence under section 498A. He also submitted that evidence on record indicated that the deceased was sensitive lady, that she was not keeping well and was also getting treatment. It was submitted that the attendant circumstances were suggestive that the deceased might have committed suicide as she was wary of life and tired off person.