STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAMNIK @ RAMESH BHURABHA BORICHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.04.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and 6th Fast Track Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.67/2002, whereby all the respondentsoriginal accused have been acquitted of the charges under Sections306, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) AS per the case of the prosecution, the incident involving the death by drowning of deceased Gita, took place between 01.07.2002 (after 3:00 a.m.) and 02.07.2002 (9:00 a.m.). The case of the prosecution is based upon a complaint made by Palabhai Kumbhabhai Boricha, father of the deceased, on 02.03.2002, wherein he has stated that at about 9:00 a.m. Mohanbhai Nathabhai Kachchi, a resident of village ThanaPipli, where the complainant resides, informed him that his daughter Gita had fallen into a well and had died. According to the complainant, he went to the well, where several people had gathered. The body of the deceased was taken out of the well and a Panchnama was drawn. The complainant identified the body as being that of his daughter, Gita. The complainant has further stated in the complaint that respondent No.1 Ramnik alias Ramesh Bhurabhai Boricha, the husband of the deceased, respondent No.2Bhurabhai Ramjibhai Boricha, fatherinlaw of the deceased, respondent No.3Dilip Bhurabhai Boricha, elder brother of the husband of the deceased (Jeth) and respondent No.4 Meenaben wife of respondent No.3 and sisterinlaw of the deceased (Jethani), used to torture the deceased in one manner or the other. As per his belief, tired of the said torture and harassment, Gita had committed suicide. It is further stated in the complaint that his daughter had married respondent No.1 against his wishes and had gone with respondent No.1 to live at Keshod. About three months before the incident, the deceased and respondent No.1 had come to live with the parents of respondent No.1 at ThanaPipli village. About three days before the incident, the complainant had met the deceased, when she had come to fetch water, and the deceased had told him that she was unhappy. The complainant, however, stated that she did not name any person who was causing her unhappiness.

(3.) IN support of its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and produced 16 documents as evidence. After the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the Trial Court explained to the accused the statements against them and recorded their further statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The respondents denied the charges against them. Respondent No.1 submitted a Written Statement to the effect that he had not caused any torture or harassment to the deceased and that the deceased was pregnant at the time of her death. Respondent No.1 further stated that there was no cooperation to the deceased from her parental family, who did not bother or care for her, therefore, as per his understanding, she was hurt by their behavior.