(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 3.2.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1994, whereby the appellant -accused was convicted for the offence under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as "IPC" for short). By the impugned judgment, for offence under Section 498 (A), the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 100/ - and, in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for a period of fifteen days was imposed. For offence under Section 306, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - and, in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for a period of six months was imposed.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that on 12.1.1994 when the appellant had gone to Rajkot in connection with his official duty and on return in the evening on the same day he found that his wife Krishna had committed suicide by strangulating herself on her neck and he immediately informed the City Police Station about the incident. The appellant also informed the brother of his deceased wife residing at Ahmedabad on telephone about the incident immediately. The brother of deceased with other relatives came to Junagadh. The Police authorities made preliminary enquiries and the deceased was cremated on 14.1.1994. Shri Rajkumar Santoshkumar, the brother of deceased Krishna (the brother -in -law of the appellant) came to Junagadh in the morning of 13.1.1994 immediately on hearing from the appellant about the suicide along with his relatives. Shri Rajkumar Santoshkumar also met Police Officers at Junagadh, took part in cremation of deceased on 14.1.1994 and did not make any complaint against the appellant. In fact, he took the incident as one of simple suicide and returned to Ahmedabad after cremation on 14.1.1994. It was after reaching Ahmedabad that the brother of the deceased and other maternal relatives of deceased Krishna decided to level false charges and implement the appellant in a criminal case and it was on 17.1.1994 that brother of deceased Krishna, viz., Shri Bajkumar Santoshkumar came to Junagadh and lodged an F.I.R. against the appellant concocting false tales of harassment by the appellant against the deceased based only on false oral evidence, alleging cruelty by him. Thereafter, presumably the complainant's side being convinced of such baseless charges, concocted documentary evidence in the shape of a letter written by the deceased Krishna to her brother Rajkumar purported to have been written on 12.1.1994, the very day of suicide incident, which, as alleged, was received in Ahmedabad on 17.1.1994 and therein allegations of false charges of illicit extra marital relations are said to have been made by the appellant against his deceased wife Krishna. This letter was posted on 19.1.1994 to B.S.P., Junagadh, by the said complainant as alleged in the Police Case under investigation.
(3.) PER contra, Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this Court through the evidence and has submitted that the judgment of the learned trial Judge is not such which calls for interference on the facts and the conviction of the accused should not be interfered with. She has submitted that the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant would not apply to the facts of this case. She submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the nexus between the cruelty and the suicide. She also submitted that even the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and since the accused has committed suicide due to cruelty meted out to her by the accused, he is rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. She also submitted that when the deceased herself has written a letter to her relatives on the date of incident, it is sufficient to prove that she was subjected to cruelty by the accused and the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated said piece of evidence and convicted the appellant. She further submitted that passage of time only cannot be a criteria for reversing the conviction of the accused and acquitting him of the charges levelled against him. She, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment may not be interfered with and it may be confirmed.