STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HASUMATIBEN RAMANLAL CHUNILAL BHAVSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has preferred this appeal challenging judgement of acquittal dated 08.04.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1990. The respondents - original accused were charged with offence punishable under Section 498(A), 306, 304 -B readwith Section 114 of IPC. Accused No.2 Chandresh Bhavsar was the husband of deceased Bhavnaben. Accused No.1 was his mother and accused No.3 was his father. The prosecution version was that marriage between Bhavnaben and Chandresh took place on 11.07.1985. Initial 05 -06 months of marriage were normal. Thereafter, harassment to Bhavnaben by her husband and parents -in -law had started. They used to demand money from her. They also used to beat her up, taunt her and treat her with cruelty. On 28.10.1988, in the evening hours at 7.30, Bhavnaben committed suicide by pouring kerosene and set herself ablaze. On that day, her husband had beaten her up which was the immediate cause for taking the extreme step. Initially, the accused were charged with offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 readwith Section 114 of IPC. Later on, charge under Section 304B was also added. The learned Sessions Judge, in the impugned judgement, did not find sufficient evidence to convict any of the accused for offence under Section 304B of the IPC. Learned counsel Mr. Ekant Aahuja appearing for the original complainant would, however, point out that the Trial Court did find sufficient evidence of harassment and cruelty being committed on the wife by the husband and the in laws. If that be the case, they could have been at least convicted for offence under Section 498A and 306 for abetment of suicide read with Section 114 of IPC. The suggestion of learned counsel Mr. Aahuja is undoubtedly valid. However, we would like to examine the entire case on the basis of evidence on record and come to the conclusion whether such evidence established any of the offences against any of the accused.

(2.) BHAVNABEN did survive for a short while after the incident. Her dying declaration was recorded by Mr. Y V. Christian P.W.1 Exh 9. He was Executive Magistrate. He was called for such purpose under a police yadi. He obtained the certificate from the Doctor that the patient was conscious. He asked the relatives of the girl and the police to leave the room before recording the dying declaration. He had recorded such declaration in presence of the doctor. He started recording the statement at 22.40 hours. In the dying declaration Exh 11 the lady stated that her mother in law and father in law were present though her husband was not. She explained that shortly after the marriage, there were quarrels. Her husband, father -in law and mother -in -law used to beat her. Her husband had beaten her on that day. Father in law had abused her parents. She therefore poured kerosene and set herself ablaze.

(3.) IN addition to such dying declaration, the prosecution relied on depositions of several witnesses. Chandrakant Kuberdas PW 3 Exh 15 was the brother of Bhavnaben. He deposed that marriage of Bhavnaben had taken place on 11.07.1985 at Nadiyad. Initial period of the marriage was pleasant. Thereafter, harassment started by the accused. They were demanding money. They used to beat her and taunt her. Whenever Bhavnaben came to his house, she recounted the instances. They would persuade her to go back. He had given money to Bhavnaben on three to four occasions which Bhavnaben would give to her father in law. Once he gave TV to Bhavnaben. Even after that the behaviour of the in laws did not change. About 10 days before the incident, she came to his house and complained about being beaten up. On 27.10.1988 i.e. the day before the incident he sent Bhavnaben to her house with his neighbour Natubhai Darbar. On 28.10.1988 around 7.30 he got a phone call informing him that Bhavnaben had got burnt. He, his wife and two friends started going to Ambli. Near Ambli cross roads they saw ambulance coming from opposite direction. They stopped the van and saw that the van was carrying his sister Bhavna alongwith her husband and mother in law. Thereupon, he, his wife and friend Janakbhai sat in the van. He asked Bhavnaben what happened upon which she said that her father in law and mother in law had beaten her up in the evening. Her husband also had beaten her and then went to press. Tired of such beating she poured kerosene and took this step. In the cross examination, this person admitted that in the FIR he had not stated about finding Bhavnaben in the Ambulance and boarding such ambulance. Number of other improvements and contradictions were established in his cross examination.