STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ASHOKBHAI TULSIBHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT application, under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred by the appellant State of Gujarat against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 30/10/2002, passed in Sessions Case No. 227 of 2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 21. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad acquitting the respondent herein original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) FACTS in nutshell of the prosecution case are that the marriage of deceased Ranjanben, D/o. Savitaben Vajubhai was solemnized in the year 1994 with Ashokbhai Tulsibhai Parmar, the respondent herein original accused. Out of the wedlock, they had two boy children. It is the case of the prosecution that after marriage, deceased Ranjanben was used to visit her parental home frequently and during her visits, she was used to complain that her husband the respondent herein, had a suspicion about her character and because of that, the respondent herein original accused was used to beat her so also, was used to taunt her as regards the domestic works and thus, was complaining about the harassment being given to her by the respondent herein original accused. However, the complainant always tried to persuade her to see that their marriage life remains intact. It is further the case of the prosecution that, lastly, on 1011/ 12/2000, deceased Ranjanben had come to Khokhra to attend the Shrimant Ceremony of the wife of the son (namely Pradip) of her brotherinlaw and at that time also, she was complaining about the suspicion of her husband and she was being beaten by her husband on this count. At that time, she was once again persuaded by her and was told to do nothing out of excitement. Thereafter, on 27/12/2000, deceased Ranjanben set her ablaze by pouring kerosene on her body. She was shifted to the civil hospital. The complainant visited the hospital and asked her as to the incident, in reply to which, the deceased told her that as her husband the respondent herein had a suspicion about her character and she took such a step.

(3.) IN support of its case, the prosecution has recorded statements of witnesses and collected several documentary evidence and after having found sufficient evidence and material against the accused, he came to be arrested and chargesheeted for the alleged offence.