INDRASING M RAOL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The appellant (original accused) came to be convicted of the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad on 11/03/1988, in Sessions Case No. 99 of 1987 and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months. He has, therefore, filed this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the order of conviction. In order to appreciate rival contentions of the parties, necessary facts may, in brief, be stated.

(2.) . Kailasba who committed suicide was the daughter of Motiba Pratapji Biholla. She married the appellant in the month of February, 1986. At that time, the appellant was serving in Army at Meerut in U. P. After solemnization of the marriage, Kailasba continued to stay at Ahmedabad with her mother, while the appellant went back to Meerut. It appears that the appellant was trying for his transfer to Ahmedabad and it was also the desire of Motiba that her daughter Kailasba should stay with her for sometime. Around October, 1986, the appellant succeeded in getting himself transferred from Meerut to Ahmedabad. Initially both the appellant and Kailasba started to reside together at the place of the appellant's brother-in-law in Ranip at Ahmedabad. Sometime thereafter, both shifted to the premises taken on lease by the appellant in Military Camp area in Ahmedabad. From 4/03/1987, the appellant and Kailasba hired Room No. 405 in Laxminagar in Ahmedabad and started to reside therein. The appellant, according to the case of the prosecution, was not treating Kailasba well. Often he was harassing, tormenting, torturing and agonising both physically and mentally. To see that his daughter became happy and might not have any problem or unrest or troubles, Motiba paid Rs. 3,000.00, over and above the ornaments, valuable articles and things given and Rs. 5,000.00 in cash paid by way of Chanlla. However, greedy appellant resorting to coercive measures continued to demand more and more dowry. The hot-headed appellant contained to excruciate Kailasba savagely as a result, she became just a bag of bones and lost her sang-froid. Harmony, love, affection, peace were found foreign to her. Whatever good she had dreamt was broken into bits, because of cruelty and continuous despotic treatment. For her, life was not worth-living, as her chagrin and miseries knew no bounds. She bred the idea to end her life, the only option left. A few days prior to 7/03/1987, the appellant and Kailasba had been to the place of Motiba in Meghaninagar. The appellant went into another room. Taking the chance, Kailasba informed Motiba-her mother that the appellant was tigerishly harassing her taking liquor, and for her, it was impossible to bear, any longer. Around 12- 00 midnight on that day, the appellant while leaving for his house asked Kailasba to go with him, but dejected Kailasba was not willing. Impudent and militaryminded appellant lost his temper. He dragged Kailasba out of the house and started to beat her indiscreetly giving kick and fist blows. Lilaben and others who rushed to the scene, hearing uproar rescued Kailasba. Thereafter, on 7/03/1987 around 7-30 a.m., at the appellant's house in Laxminagar, Kailasba poured kerosene on her and set herself ablaze and committed suicide. Initially, Police having come to know about the incident treating the same to be the accidental death, made the entry accordingly in police record, but thereafter on the same day at 4-00 p.m., when Motiba lodged the complaint with Shahibaug Police Station, F.I.R. came to be registered relating to the offences punishable under Secs. 498- A and 306 of Indian Penal Code, alleging above stated case in short. After the Police investigation was over, the Police Officer of Shahibaug Police Station, Ahmedabad filed the charge-sheet against the appellant qua aforesaid offences, in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. As the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was not competent to hear and decide the case, he committed the same to the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad. It came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 99 of 1987. The then learned Additional City Sessions Judge assigned with the case framed the charge at Ex. 1 initially relating to the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet, but later on he amended the charge adding the charge qua the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B of Indian Penal Code. Appreciating the evidence produced before him and considering rival submissions, the then learned Additional City Sessions Judge reached the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge relating to the offences punishable under Secs. 306 and 304-B of Indian Penal Code; but succeeded in establishing the charge relating to the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code. He, therefore, held the appellant guilty of the offence under Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code alone, and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. It is against that order of conviction, the present appeal is filed challenging the legality and validity thereof.

(3.) . Mr. Amin, the learned Advocate representing the appellant assailing the judgment and order of the lower Court contends that the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty even of the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The case hinges on the evidence of Motiba Pratapji Biholla (Ex. 10), Lilaben Jaikishandas (Ex. 14) and Manusinh Pratapsing - the brother of the deceased (Ex. 15). When the evidence of all the three witnesses, if perused with care, it would appear clearly that the prosecution has failed to bring the guilt home to the appellant. Their evidence inspires no confidence and suffers from inherent improbabilities. The learned Judge prowled about for imaginary reasoning for holding the appellant guilty. Only on one incident alleged to have occurred 15 days prior to the incident at the place of Motiba during night time, the learned Judge, having been impressed much, was swayed away with the same along with three letters written by the appellant and held the appellant guilty. The assessment of the evidence made is misconceived, and proper perspectives are overlooked. One cannot be unmindful about the tendency of the nearest relatives of the parents' side of the woman committing suicide to blindly assume mischief on the part of and suspect her husband and her in-laws, and make false accusations of cruelty. It would, not therefore, be just to assume guarantee for the truthfulness of such accusation. In reply to such contention, Mr. Mehta, the learned A.G.P. supports the order of the lower Court mainly on those reasons assigned by the learned Judge, and submits that the learned Judge has not at all misread the evidence. He also submitted that the Court has not to overlook the anxiety that is reflected by the introduction of Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Becoming harsh and austere, the inclination of the Court must be to inflict severe punishment if necessary by ignoring some infirmities, because the prosecution is not expected to prove the charge with arithmetical accuracy and certainty.