SURESHKUMAR CHHAGANBHAI RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal arises out of a judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar, on 14th July, 2005, in Sessions Case No.32 of 2005, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, so also under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Court directed the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ -, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A of the I.P.C. The Trial Court also directed the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ -, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the I. P.C. The Trial Court further ordered the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/ -, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appeal is preferred.

(2.) THE appellant is the resident of Himmatpur of Himmatnagar Taluka of Sabarkantha District and was married to Kailashben, daughter of Shanabhai Punjabhai Raval of village Meherwada. From the wedlock, he has a daughter named "Kinjal", aged about three years.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant contended that the conviction is recorded on the basis of a presumption available under the Evidence Act on a premise that the incident occurred within seven years of marriage of the appellant with the deceased whereas there is no concrete evidence to show that the marriage span was of less than seven years. It is also contended that the allegation of demand of dowry is not properly proved. It has come in evidence that there is no custom of dowry in the community of the appellant. On the contrary, there is a converse practice whereunder the husband or his parents pay money to the parents of the wife and, accordingly, the accused paid Rs.30,000/ - to the complainant. According to the learned Advocate, the accused is a man of self -respect and had to sell off his camel cart for repayment of his debt. The deceased, who was a sensitive person, was, therefore, disturbed and committed suicide. There was never any demand raised by the appellant nor it is proved to have been raised by way of dowry. There is no evidence of any cruelty having committed by the appellant and the Trial Court ran into an error while recording conviction and sentencing the appellant, as indicated above. It is contended that no independent witness supports the case of cruelty or the allegation of demand of dowry. On the contrary, there is evidence of a neighbour, who says that there was no dispute between the husband and the wife, i.e. the appellant and the deceased, and they were living peacefully. The allegation comes only from the parents of the deceased. There is no evidence of any proximate act on the part of the appellant to constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be allowed.