STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL PRAVINKUMAR KASHIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Appeal, the State of Gujarat has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 93 of 1994 dated 28th September 1994 vide which, the present respondents/accused have been acquitted by the trial Court for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 304 [B], 498A of the Indian Penal Code ["IPC" for short] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) The facts leading to the Appeal as unfolded during trial are that - the complainant Chhaganbhai Virchanddas Patel, resident of Khali has two sons and three daughters. His son Vishnu is eldest among them and daughter Ramila is younger to him, Kailashben is younger to Ramila and Savita is younger to Kailashben. Whereas, his son Ashwin is youngest among all his children. His daughter Ramila's marriage was solemnized at village Gorad with one Mahendrakumar Jesangbhai Patel. But, as they did not have harmonious relations with each other, they took divorce. As his son Vishnu's marriage was also solemnized there, he also had taken divorce. After passage of twelve months, it was decided to solemnized marriage of his daughter Ramila with Pravinkumar Patel, resident of Dhanlaxmi Society, Mahesana and in exchange thereof, it was also decided to solemnize marriage of Bhikhiben - sister of Pravinkumar with complainant's son named Vishnu. Thereby, these marriages were solemnized by way of such exchange. Prior to two months of lodgment of the complaint, when his daughter got remarried, a gold chain was given to her, but it was forcefully taken away from her by Pravinkumar ie. , the son-in-law of the complainant. The complainant's daughter Ramila told him that the said gold chain was sold out by her husband-Pravinkumar. Thereafter, the complainant advised his daughter to live harmoniously at her inlaws' and sent her back by stating that he would purchase another gold chain for her. Prior to one week of the incident i. e. on 26/09/1993, Ramila again came at the house of complainant and stated in presence his son, his wife and his brother Bhagwandas that her parents-in-law and husband have sent her to bring Rs. 20,000/- from her parents which they need for their other house. She further stated that she has been clearly told by her in-laws that they will not allow her to enter into the house unless she brings the said amount. All present there have pacified her and asked her to send her father-in-law Kashiram or mother-in-law Joitiben to discuss in this regard. When Ramila was asked to go to her in-laws house after her brief stay for three days at the complainant's house, she denied to go there without money. She told that her parents-inlaw and husband would not allow her to live there peacefully without money. As a result of that the complainant told her that he or his brother will come to meet her in-laws in this regard in two days and thereby, she was persuaded to go to her in-laws house. Due to death occurred at Kanesara village in the morning on 31-12-1993, there was condolence meeting and the complainant went there to attend the same with some persons of his area, there were persons from Mahesana. As one of them came to know that we hail from Khali village, he stated that a woman in Dhanlakshmi Society, who also hails from Khali village died due to burning. On knowing this, they inquired further, but they did not state anything else. Moreover, the complainant does not even know him. As his daughter Ramila lived in Dhanlakshmi Society, the complainant, his brother-Bhagwandas, Vishnubhai and Amratbhai Shankarbhai hired a jeep and came to Unjha to see her. He along with his nephew Kantibhai went to bungalow no. 19B in Dhanlakshmi Society, where his daughter resided and found that there were many people standing surrounding the said house and Police was carrying out investigation at rear side of the house. When he went into the house, dead body of his daughter was lying in the hall. Her external clothes were all burnt; she had sustained severe burn injuries all over her body and died. Therefore, he asked her in laws Kashiram Prabhudas, Joitiben and son-in-law Pravinkumar Kashiram who were present there and they stated that some altercation had occurred on a previous night; resultantly, Ramila has taken such a step. Having said this, they did not state anything else. But, he came to know via hearsay from surrounding persons that Ramila was strangled by her in-laws and husband; kerosene was poured on her and she was set on fire at about 07:00 hrs in the morning. Moreover, he came to know the fact that aforesaid three persons quarreled with Ramila throughout the night. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint against all the respondents [accused] at the Mahesana City Police Station. Having registered the said complaint, offence was registered against the said accused.

(3.) In the present case, in order to prove its case, prosecution examined complainant Chhaganlal Virchandbhai as prosecution witness no. 1 at Exh. 13; Bhagwanbhai Virchandbhai as PW-2 at Exh. 15; PW-3 Patel Kantilal Ambalal at Exh. 16; PW-4 Manubhai Hirabhai Barot at Exh. 17; PW-5 Kanubhai Hirabhai at Exh. 19; PW-6 Vijaykumar Rameshbhai Rami at Exh. 21; Medical Officer PW-7 Manilal Amthabhai Prajapati at Exh. 23 [who performed post mortem of the deceased]; PW-8 Kanubhai Ramshilal at Exh. 26; PW-9 Ramabhai Manilal at Exh. 27; PW-10 Maheshgiri at Exh. 28; PW-11 Lilaben Ramgiri at Exh. 29; PW 12 Laxmanji Ranaji at Exh. 30 and PW-13 Jassujo Rana at Exh. 47.