STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UMESHBHAI RAMSURAT PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 10, Rajkot, on 15th of April, 2005, in Sessions Case No. 96 of 2004, whereby the Trial Court acquitted present respondent, being accused of the Sessions Case, punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 306 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Prosecution case briefly stated that deceased Rina had married to present respondent before 3 to 4 years of the incident. The complaint came to be filed by brother of deceased Vijaypal Ayodhyaprasad Tiwari, PW-2, before Police Commissioner, Eastern Division, Rajkot City, on 21st of August, 2003, stating that though Rina was married to Respondent, she frequently visited their house at UP and used to stay for 10 to 15 days. Respondent was working at Rajkot and, therefore, both husband and wife were staying at Rajkot. On 16th of August, 2003, younger brother of respondent came to them and informed that Rina had got burn injuries and was admitted in the hospital at Rajkot. On 18th of August, 2003, respondent informed them that Rina had died. Therefore, complainant and other relatives of deceased came to Rajkot and inquired about the death of Rina. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage of Rina, it was decided to give Rs. 15,000/- towards dowry, but on account of financial condition of father of Rina, Rs.10,000/- were paid to respondent and remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- was kept to be paid afterwards. On account of this, behaviour of the respondent was not proper towards Rina or towards the relatives of deceased Rina. According to complainant, whenever they attempted to talk to Rina on phone, they were not allowed by the respondent to the extent that respondent prohibited relationship of Rina with them. When both of them resumed stay at Rajkot, Rina had conveyed that remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- of dowry to be paid to the respondent must be paid immediately. She also stated that otherwise it would be difficult for her to live with her in-laws. It is the allegation that, on account of this, cruelty was executed upon Rina and, therefore, Rina committed suicide on account of behaviour of the respondent. Crime came to be registered upon the above said complaint and a charge sheet came to be filed against the respondent for above said offences which was registered as Criminal Case No. 9795 of 2003. The said case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge and 10th Fast Track Court, Rajkot, which was registered as Sessions Case No. 96 of 2004. Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the respondent on 8th of October, 2004, vide Exhibit 5, to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and he was, therefore, put to trial. Prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses to prove its case and produced on record voluminous documentary evidence. After the evidence of the prosecution was over, incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to the respondent and his statement was recorded by the Trial Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard prosecution as well as defence and came to the above conclusion and, hence, this Appeal.

(3.) Learned APP Mr. I.M. Pandya for the State was heard at length at this stage. We have called for Record and Proceedings from the Trial Court and have gone through carefully the evidence recorded during the trial and the appreciation of the evidence undertaken by the Trial Court. We have at this stage considered vital features of the matter and the reasonable probability arising out of the circumstances of the case. We have undertaken thorough scrutiny of the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for acquitting the accused.