STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRADYUMANSINH MANUBHAI JADEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.12.1996, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch -Bhuj, in Sessions Case No. 88 of 1992, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 306 and 498(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosecution is that Dharmishthaben (hereinafter referred to as -˜the deceased) was married to respondent No. 1 in January, 1991. Respondent No.2 is the brother of respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 is the mother -in -law of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is based upon the complaint dated 22.5.1992, made by PW 2 Pravinsinh Bachubha Gohil, brother of the deceased, to the effect that the marriage of his sister (the deceased) took place about one year and four months before the incident, which took place on 23.5.1991. After two to three months of her marriage, when she had come to her parental home, the deceased had complained that her mother -in -law (respondent No.3) and her brother -in -law (respondent No.2) used to taunt her on small things and used to cause her harassment by calling her kamchor (shirker). Thereafter, the parents of the deceased assured her that everything would be fine and sent her back to the matrimonial home with respondent No.2, who had come to take her back. After about one and a half months, respondent No. 1 informed PW3 and PW 4 the parents of the deceased, that the deceased had sustained burn injuries while cooking and had been admitted at Bhuj General Hospital. The parents of the deceased went to Bhuj General Hospital and the complainant followed, four days later. The deceased had sustained burn injuries on her chest, neck, hands and stomach. Upon inquiring from her regarding the incident, the deceased stated that she had set herself ablaze due to the torture inflicted upon her by the respondents. The deceased had remained in Hospital for about one and a half months, after which she was taken to the house of her aunt PW6 at village Raseliya, where she was treated by a Vaidya, (PW5). After about 20 days, the deceased was taken to her parental home at village Dujapar, where she ultimately died on 18.8.1991, about three months after the incident. The complaint was made on 22.5.1992 by PW 2, brother of the deceased. After the filing of the complaint, the investigation commenced. No post -mortem was performed on the body of the deceased and neither was an inquest held. After recording the statement of the witnesses, the respondents were charge -sheeted before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anjar. As the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bhuj -Kutch, which came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 88 of 1992. Charges were framed against the respondents, which were read over and explained to them. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the case was put to trial. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and produced documentary evidence. At the end of the trial, upon appreciation and evaluation of the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the respondents of the charges levelled against them, giving rise to the filing of the present appeal.

(3.) THE respondents have been served but they have not chosen to put in their appearances before the Court.