STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JASHODABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The acquittal of the respondents recorded by the learned Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad vide judgment and order dated 30/08/1991 rendered in Sessions Case No. 210/90 for the offences punishable under sections 306, 498-A & 114 of the Indian Penal Code is challenged by the appellant in this appeal which is filed under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) The facts of the prosecution case be stated in nutshell are as under :- Manjulaben (hereinafter to be referred to as "deceased") was daughter of Motibhai Prabhatsinh and was married to respondent no.2 Kanubhai @ Harishbhai Manubhai Raj 4 years prior to the date of the incident i.e. 25/10/1989. The respondent no.1 is the mother of respondent no.2 and mother-in-law of the deceased. The respondent no.2 was working in Gujarat Police Force and was staying at the relevant time with respondent no.1 and the deceased at the Policeline, Balasinor. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was meted out cruelty by the respondents, which ultimately led her to commit suicide by jumping in the well which was near Policeline. The respondents frantically searched the deceased and ultimately her dead body was found from the well. With the help of one wooden cot, dead body of the deceased was taken out from the well and it was taken to village Shili where father of the deceased was residing. On October 25, 1989, occurrence report was made at Balasinor for the death of the deceased which was registered as Accidental Case No.8/89. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was held under a panchnama and thereafter her dead body was sent for postmortem to Community Health Centre, Balasinor, where autopsy was performed by Dr. Shashikant S. Nagori on 27/10/1989 from 12.30 P.M. to 2.15 P.M. Mr. N.D.Solanki, Deputy Superintendent of Police of Kapadwanj, who was incharge of investigation, recorded statements of witnesses who were conversant with the accidental death of the deceased. During the investigation, Deputy Superintendent of Police was of the opinion that the deceased had committed suicide due to cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the respondents and, therefore, he lodged complaint against the respondents on 29/10/1989 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 306 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered as C.R.No. I. 149/89 of Balasinor Police Station. Viscera which was collected during postmortem, was sent for analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory for finding out the cause of death. Various panchnamas, such as, panchnama of place of incident, panchnama of recovery of clothes of the deceased etc. were drawn by the investigating officer. After receipt of report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balasinor. As offence under section 306 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 9/92.

(3.) Charge at Exh.2 was framed against the respondents for the offences punishable under sections 306, 498-A & 114 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad. The charge was read over and explained to the respondents, who pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. To prove the charge against the respondents, prosecution examined; (1) Dr. Shashikant S. Nagori, PW.1 at Exh.23, (2) Shankerbhai Manabhai, PW.2 at Exh.25, (3) Dalpatsinh Kanjibhai, PW.3 at Exh.26, (4) Vamanrao Rajaram, PW.4 at Exh.29, (5) Motibhai Prabhatsinh, PW.5 at Exh.30, (6) Harishbhai Motibhai, PW.6 at Exh.31, and (7) Nitirajsinh Dahyabhai Solanki (Deputy Superintendent of Police), PW.7 at Exh.35. The prosecution to prove guilt against the respondents also produced documentary evidence, such as, complaint, various panchnamas, postmortem notes, report of Forensic Science Laboratory, notices issued by the competent authorities under the Bombay Police Act to respondent no.1 to vacate the quarter allotted to the husband of respondent no.1 etc.