AHMEDABAD MUNI TRANSPORT SERVICE Vs. YASMINBANU G PATANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is admitted. Mr.R.J.Goswami, learned advocate, waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent. At the request of parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is being heard and finally disposed of today.

(2.) The present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9th September, 2004 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in Sessions Case No.25 of 2004, whereby the respondent (original accused) has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the case of the prosecution are that a complaint dated 15th November,2003 was received at Jadar Police Station, which was registered as Crime Register No.I-86 of 2003. The complainant is the brother of the deceased Maheshbhai. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased was a resident of village Mudeti, Taluka Idar, District Sabarkantha and was married to one Sangeetaben, whose paternal village was Chitroda. While the deceased and Sangeetaben were living at village Mudeti, the accused came into contact with Sangeetaben and began to have illicit relations with her. According to the prosecution case, the accused was financially and physically a powerful man and used to forcibly enter the house of the deceased in order to carry on illicit relations with Sangeetaben. Further, according to the prosecution story, the accused used to come to the house of the deceased in a drunken condition and create scenes and on two or three occasions he had also beaten up the deceased. Since the deceased had become tired of the harassment meted out to him by the accused, he had gone to live in Chitroda. However, according to the prosecution case, when he and Sangeetaben had visited Mudeti a week before the incident, the accused had come to the house of the deceased at about 12.30 at night in a drunken condition, had banged on the door and shouted for Sangeetaben to come out of the house. According to the prosecution story, this behaviour continued till 2.30 A.M. when the accused was taken away by one Pravinbhai Desai. Early next morning, the deceased and Sangeetaben returned to Chitroda. However, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused used to threaten the deceased over the telephone and due to the fear of the accused and the harassment meted out by him, the deceased had committed suicide by hanging himself.