STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHAVDA MALDE HARDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st December, 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No.150 of 1993, whereby he has acquitted the respondents of the offences punishable under sections 306, 498(A) read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution case is to the effect that the marriage of Janiben, daughter of the first informant- Ranmal Devanand was solemnized about three years prior thereto, with Malde Hardas of Samor village, as per the customs of their caste. After her marriage, time and again, his daughter Janiben used to come to her parental home on festivals and occasions and, lastly, on Satam Atham (Janmashtmi), she had visited them. At that time, Janiben had told the first informant and his wife that her father-in-law Hardas and her mother- in-law Zanziben used to taunt her in connection with household work and her husband used to tell her that he does not want her. Thereafter, for two months, no one came to fetch Janiben and after two months, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law had come to fetch her. About twenty days prior to the incident, the first informant's son-in-law Malde had come to fetch the first informant and told him that Janiben was not doing any work and, hence, he should come and take her away. On the next day, the first informant went to Samor village and in the presence of everyone, had tried to make his daughter Janiben understand things. However, the accused had told him that they did not want his daughter, that she was not doing any work, and hence, he should take her away, in response to which, the first informant had told him that if they did not want her, they should come and leave her, whereupon the accused had told him that the work of groundnut was going on and once it was over, they would come and leave her. At that time, Janiben had told the first informant that her husband was beating her and that her mother-in-law and father-in-law were harassing her by saying whatever they liked. 28th Thereafter, on November, 1992, when the first informant was at his agricultural field, one Merubhai of Samor village had come with a rickshaw to his agricultural field and told the first informant that his daughter Janiben had consumed poison and that she was taken to the hospital at Khambhaliya for treatment, and hence, he had come to fetch the first informant. Upon hearing this, the first informant had called his paternal cousin Vejanand and his elder brother Bhayabhai and telling the ladies in the house to come subsequently, they had left for Khambhalia where they went to the hospital. When they reached the hospital at Khambhaliya, the first informant learnt that his daughter had expired. Upon asking his son-in- law about the same, he had told him that Janiben had consumed poison. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the first information report came to be lodged before the P.S.I., Khambhaliya vide I-C.R. No.209 of 1992. Pursuant to the lodging of the first information report, investigation came to be carried out and charge-sheet came to be submitted before the concerned court. The case, thereafter, came to be committed to the Court of Sessions, where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.150 of 1997.

(3.) MR . K. L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited the attention of the court to the record and proceedings of the case and, more particularly, to the depositions of the witnesses. It was submitted that there is ample evidence connecting the accused with the offences in question, however, the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the same in proper perspective and has acquitted the accused. It was submitted that the prosecution had duly established that the accused were subjecting the deceased to mental and physical harassment and were taunting her in respect of household work, which has resulted into the death of the deceased. It was pointed out that the deceased has expired within a span of about three years from the date of her marriage and, hence, the presumption under section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be attracted in the present case. Under the circumstances, the acquittal recorded by the learned Judge is required to be set aside and the accused are required to be convicted for the alleged offences.