HARPALSINH DUNGARBHAI KHER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner­original informant calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 4th October 2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No.321 of 2014.

(2.) It appears that the respondent Nos.2 to 8 are accused, having abetted commission of suicide. It appears that the daughter of the petitioner herein was harassed by the accused persons. On account of incessant harassment, the daughter committed suicide. Before committing suicide, she left behind a suicide note. In the suicide note, addressed to her mother, father and her elders it has been stated that she was fed up with the continuous and incessant harassment at the end of the persons named therein, i.e. the accused. She has stated that the persons named in the note used to call her up on phone and harass her. Whenever she used to come out of the house they used to harass her. They used to threatened her. She has stated that on account of fear of her father she was unable to disclose the same before the family members. She has further stated that if she would disconnect the telephone line they used to threaten her that they would tarnish her reputation in the society. She has stated that on account of harassment by the accused persons her life had been spoilt. She has also stated that many times thought use to come in her mind of committing suicide. It appears that, shortly thereafter she committed suicide.

(3.) The trial Court refused to exhibit the suicide note solely on the ground that the same would not constitute a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. To put in other words the trial Court is of the view that the statements made by the deceased in the note could not be termed as the circumstance of the transaction which resulted in her death within the meaning of Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act.