STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAJENDRA DATTARAM TALVADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Prakash Joshi, learned advocate is appointed as amicus curiae for the accused-respondent, but his name is not shown in the matter. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C"), is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.06.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 182/2002, whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the original accused-respondent herein, of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant-deceased Smitaben was married to the present respondent-accused Rajendra Dattaram Talvade four years prior to the incident. It is further case of the prosecution that the complainant-deceased Smitaben was residing with her husband i.e. present accused at Althan Tenament, Surat and during the said wedlock, they got one baby child, who was residing with the parents of the deceased. It is further case of the prosecution that the complainant-deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- by doing household work and the private office work. Before eight months, the husband of the complainant-deceased i.e. the present accused was running a rickshaw and till the incident, he was unemployed. It is further case of the prosecution that whenever the complainant-deceased was asking the accused to go for earning, the accused used to beat up the deceased-complainant. It is further case of the prosecution that on the day of the incident i.e. on 02.03.2000, the complainant-deceased had gone for service and returned at about 8:30 hours in the night. At that time, the door of her house was locked, therefore, she unlocked the same with another key. Thereafter, she made some vegetables and awaited for the accused. It is further case of the prosecution that at that time, the accused came there in a drunken position. A quarrel took place in this regard and the deceased rebuked the accused and therefore, the accused got excited and slapped on the face of the complainant-deceased. It is further case of the prosecution that he also twisted the hand of the complainant-deceased and being annoyed, he told the deceased-complainant that I would kill her today. By saying so, he sprinkled kerosene on the person of the deceased and therefore to get the accused frightened only, the deceased ignited matchstick, which caught the kerosene of the body of the deceased and therefore, she started burning. Thereafter, she was rescued from further burning and shifted to Civil Hospital, where PSI recorded the statement/dying declaration of the complainant-deceased Smitaben. The Executive Magistrate also recorded the dying declaration of the complainant-deceased.

(3.) After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the learned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate Court under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") committed the said case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Surat, which was, thereafter, numbered as Sessions Case No. 182 of 2000. Since the opponent-accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, he was tried for the alleged offences.