STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GIRISHKUMAR LAXMISHANKAR @ NANUBHAI TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant State has filed this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 6 -12 -2004 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhragandhra in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2004 acquitting the respondents accused for the offences punishable u/ss 306, 498 -A and 114 of the I.P. Code.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution case was that deceased Chetnaben was the daughter of complainant Babulal Parshotamdas Raval and was was married to accused No.1 Girishkumar Laxmishanker @ Nanubhai Trivedi of village Patdi before about 8 to 9 months of the incident. Accused No. 2 Sharmisthaben wd/o Laxmishanker @ Nanubhai Oghadram was the mother -in -law, accused No. 3 Kailasben Pravinkumar Mehta was sister -in -law and accused No. 4 Geetaben Dineshkumar Makwana was the neighbour of deceased Chetnaben. After marriage when Chetnaben came to her matrimonial house she told the complainant that the accused were inflicting mental and physical cruelty to her in respect of house -hold work. Before about four months of the accident, accused Girishskumar Laxmishanker @ Nanubhai Trivedi, accused Kailasben, accused Geetaben and other three persons came to leave Chetnaben to the complainant's house and informed that there was a dispute between Chetnaben and her mother -in -law Sharmisthaben. But Chetnaben refused to stay at the complainant's house. Therefore, accused took Chetnaben to Patan Police Station. The complainant and his wife were called at the police station. But no complaint was lodged by any one and Chetnaben was persuaded and therefore she stayed at the house of the complainant for a day and thereafter went to her matrimonial house alone as accused Girishkumar did not come to take Chetnaben. Thereafter about two months accused Girishkumar, accused Geetaben and others came to the house of the complainant to leave Chetnaben and a writing was written by them on stamp paper to the effect that if anything happens to Chetnaben they (accused) will not be responsible and asked the complainant to sign the same but the complainant refused to sign the said writing and asked the accused to take Chetnaben with them but they did not take her with them so Chetnaben stayed at complainant's house for about 10 days and thereafter returned to her matrimonial house. Before about a week of the incident, Chetnaben came to the house of the complainant and told him that she had come to take old Television set and after taking Television set she returned to her matrimonial house. On 12 -2 -2004 at about 20 -00 hours. Chetnaben sustained burn injuries at her matrimonial house and was taken to Community Health Centre (CHC) at Patdi for treatment and the incident was reported to Patdi Police Station. The police station recorded the incident as "Janva Jog" Entry No.5 of 2004 at 20 -45 hours and preliminary investigation was started. A 'Yadi" was sent to Executive Magistrate to record dying declaration of Chetnaben and dying declaration was recorded. As Chetnaben had burns all over her body she was referred to V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad. Chetnaben succumbed to her injuries on 20 -2 -2004 and death was recorded as Accidental Death No.4 of 2004 by Patdi Police Station under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The dead body of Chetnaben was sent for postmortem after drawing inquest panchnama. Thereafter, Babulal Parshotamdas Raval, the father of deceased Chetnaben lodged compliant before Patdi Police Station on 3 -3 -2004 for the offences punishable u/s 498 -A, 306 and 114 of the I.P. Code against the accused and it was registered as I - CR No.13 of 2004 and investigation was started. During the course of investigation, statement of the witnesses were recorded and the accused were arrested.

(3.) ON completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid before learned J.M.F.C., Patdi for the offence punishable u/ss 498 -A, 306 and 114 of the I.P. Code. As the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Dhrangadhra and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 15 of 2004. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhragandhra framed charge at Exh. 9 against the accused for the offences punishable u/ss 498 -A, 306 and 114 of the I.P. Code. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution led evidence to prove the charge. On completion of recording of evidence, the leaned trial Judge explained to the accused the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. The accused explained the incriminating circumstances in their further statement recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and denied having committed the offence and also filed written statement. It is stated by the accused that deceased Chetnaben sustained accidental burn injuries while preparing meal in the evening of 12 -2 -2004; that deceased Chetnaben in her dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate and the police stated that it was an accident. It is further explained that they never inflicted physical or mental cruelty to deceased Chetnaben nor have they demanded any dowry. It is explained that accused Kailasben is married and resides at Nana Goriya village; that she was not at village on the day of the incident and accused Geetaben is innocent.