STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SUNILKUMAR KANAIYALAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31-8-1984 passed in Sessions Case No. 141 of 1983 by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol.

(2.) The respondent married Kokilaben, the deceased after his former wife Hansaben died. Hasmukh Ishwarlal is the brother of the deceased, Kokilaben. The respondent and Kokilaben were residing at Gandhinagar in Sector No. 23. The parents, two sisters and brother of the respondent were also residing with them. After the marriage for few months their marriage life was happy and no one had any problem, but later on dissension arose between the two and both were quarrelling often pushing the war-button. Sometimes on the point of ornaments or sometimes on the point of watch or other things, either of the two used to pick a fight. The respondent never missed a chance to nettle Kokilaben and nag her. Continuously she was scorched with invectives. She was treated like a chattel and a beast. Humanism was foreign to the respondent, he was a terror to Kokilaben. She was often humiliated and it was difficult for her to reconcile. Her married life had come under strains. She was made to realise that life was not worth-living, and something extreme would be the solution, because by resorting to other available remedial measures, she did not like to be out of the frying pan into the fire. On 19-9-1983 in the evening the respondent bickered with Kokilaben although she used to swallow her vexation always and bear anguish. She was badly humiliated, and disconcerted, and ideated to die uttering "better die today than tomorrow". At 9-00 p.m. on that day she went into the kitchen, bolted the door from inside and burnt herself pouring kerosene on her person and committed suicide. A complaint was lodged by Hasmukh the brother of the deceased before the police at Gandhinagar. At the conclusion of the police investigation, the respondent was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sec. 306 and also Sec. 201, I.P.C. before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Gandhinagar. The learned Judicial Magistrate at Gandhinagar being not competent in law to hear and decide the matter committed the case to the Court of Session, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol. The case then came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 141 of 1983. A charge Exh. 4 against the respondent was framed to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution then led necessary evidence. Appreciating the evidence before him, the learned Judge below reached to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to bring the guilt home to the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, acquitted the respondent. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Raval, the learned A.P.P. representing the State submitted that the learned Judge erroneously appreciated the evidence and acquitted the respondent. There was sufficient evidence about terror and frequent quarrels in record going to show clearly that respondent was the tormentor and that fact was sufficient to hold that the respondent abetted his wife Kokilaben to commit suicide and thereby committed the offence. Our attention was drawn to the evidence of Hasmukh Ishwarlal (Exh. 22), Harnarayan Pandya (Ex. 24), Sharmishthaben Jasubhai (Ex. 26) and Lilaben Amritbhai (Exh. 27). Mr. Japee the learned Advocate representing the respondent contended that generally the in-laws of the husband would make a mountain of a mole-hill and would always assume wickedness, hostility, design, extravaganza, meanness, wile, and what not ? Because of prejudices and ill-based notions, the inlaws would deprecate the husband and his family members. The neighbours would also be sailing in the same boat adopting sympathetic and sentimental attitude. He, therefore, urged to discard the evidence of these witnesses, who are either the inlaws or neighbours of the respondent.