STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DAHYABHAI VIRABHAI BHATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant ­ State has filed the present criminal appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order, dated 30.1.2006, passed in Sessions Case No.112 of 2001, by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.2, Rajkot whereby, the trial court has been pleased to acquit the respondents accused from the charges for which they have been tried.

(2.) The case of the prosecution are that the third daughter named Pratibhaben of complainant Ramjibhai was married on 15.2.1989 with Maheshbhai, son of Dahyabhai Bhatti and she was living in her nuptial. Pratibhaben visited her parents frequently after her marriage and she had not told him of any kind of unhappiness in her matrimonial home. The complainant had last met Pratibhaben on Dashera and he himself had dropped Pratibhaben at her matrimonial home and at that time, Pratibhaben had not told him about any quarrels or discord at her home. Thereafter, on 14.10.1989, he was informed in the early morning that his daughter Pratibhaben had hanged herself. Immediately his two sons and his wife had gone to Pratibhaben's house and thereafter, he also had gone there and at that time, a lady social worker was there in Pratibhaben's room. And when the complainant saw the dead body of his daughter, he felt faint. Thereafter, complainant's son-in-law Mahesh had informed him that Pratibhaben was sulking since the previous noon and she had not eaten and in the night also he had taken her dinner in her room and thereafter Pratibhaben had gone to sleep and he was watching a program of young artists going on in front of his home from his terrace with other family members and at about half past one in program, he had gone to sleep and found the door closed. He knocked loudly on the door but Pratibhaben did not reply. Thereafter, after much trying, they opened the window glass and looking from the window, Pratibhaben was found hanging from ceiling fan and therefore, their neighbour Mukundbhai had kicked open the door and Pratibhaben was taken down. Her breathing had stopped and police was informed. Complainant had seen black spot on the neck of Pratibhaben and some greenish spot on her chick and her tongue was bitten. The last rituals of Pratibhaben's body were performed by Pratibhaben's in-laws. As per the complaint, Pratibhaben's father-in-law frequently used bad language and foul words and Pratibhaben's mother- in-law Ujiben also used to taunt and interfere in Pratibhaben's household work and Pratibhaben's husband Mahesh also harassed her at the instigation of his parental aunt Chaturaben and therefore, Pratibhaben's father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and aunt Chatruaben are responsible for the death of deceased Pratibhaben and in the aforesaid manner, the complaint is filed before the concerned police station.

(3.) Mr.L.R.Poojari, learned APP for the appellant ­ State has vehemently contended that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is not only erroneous but reflecting clear non- application of mind. It has been contended that despite the fact that detailed evidence at length is adduced before the trial court, still, however, the evidence has not been construed in its true perspective and therefore, such exercise of jurisdiction is uncalled for as the same reflects perversity in analyzing the material on record. Mr.Poojari has further contended that date of incident is 14.10.1989, whereas the date of marriage of the respondent No.1 ­ accused with deceased is 15.2.1989 and therefore, within a span of 8 months only, the incident occurred and therefore, the presumption is to be dislodged by the respondents accused and such responsibility has not been discharged by the respondents accused and therefore, keeping this in mind the trial court ought to have given due weightage to this issue as well. Having not done so, the trial court has committed a clear error in exercise of jurisdiction which deserves to be corrected. Learned APP has further contended that looking to the specific charge as compared to the testimony of various witnesses who have been examined during the course of trial by the prosecution, it clearly suggests that connectivity of the respondents accused with crime is established and that aspect has not been properly dealt with by the trial court which is nothing but a clear error of exercise of jurisdiction material in nature and therefore, same deserves to be corrected. Mr.Poojari, learned APP has further contended that apart from this, the medical evidence is also clearly corroborating the version of the prosecution and in addition thereto, the brother of the deceased has clearly established that in immediate past there was an incident of ill-treatment meted out to her which led to her to commit suicide and therefore, this aspect ought not to have been ignored by the trial court. Apart from this, on the contrary, the testimony of brother is clearly suggesting that not only it is an allegation that deceased has not committed suicide but, she is done away by the respondents accused and there are clinching evidences suggestive of that fact from the testimony of witnesses and therefore, when the prosecution has examined relevant witnesses simply because the same happened to be the relatives, their testimony could not have been discarded and therefore, this is nothing but a clear error on the part of the trial court. Learned APP has further drawn the attention of this Court for asserting that even independent witness has also substantially supported the case of prosecution and the evidences of brothers as well as mother of the deceased coupled with the testimony of neighbour is clearly suggesting that the deceased was done away by the respondents accused.