STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHANGI MUKESHBHAI HIMATLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL is filed by the State calling in question the judgment of acquittal dated 31.12.1992 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No.26 of 1992. The respondentaccused were charged with offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. They were acquitted of all the charges. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) PROSECUTION had placed heavy reliance on the First Information Report, Exh.45, which was treated as a dying declaration. This document contained endorsement of Smt. S.P. Jhaveri, member of Women's Protection Committee, Surendranagar, and a doctor, which, the prosecution claims was Dr. Vipul P. Khandhar. In the judgment, the trial court relied on the fact that the prosecution had not examined these persons as witnesses. In that view of the matter, the State has also filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.808 of 1994 seeking permission to examine the said two persons as witnesses.

(3.) THE prosecution version was that there were matrimonial disputes between deceased Jayshree and her husband Mukeshbhai Himmatlalaccused No.1. Mukeshbhai was short of money and would pressurize his wife to borrow from her brothers. Just before the date of the incident, he had tried to borrow Rs.5,000/ - from the relatives of his wife, which was refused. On 6.12.1991 at about 9.30 in the morning, the husband picked up a quarrel with the wife about getting money from her relatives. Thereupon, accused No.2 -Rajubhai Himmatlal, brother of the husband caught hold of Jayshree. Accused No.1 poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. In seriously burnt condition, she was taken to a nearby hospital. She survived till 14.12.1991, during which time her dying declarations were recorded. Initially a case of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was recorded. Upon her death, the accused were charged with offence under Section 302.