CR.A/622/1993 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 622 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MANHARBHAI C DHODIA & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR CJ VIN for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.MS NEETA J MERCHANT for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.MS SUDHA C SHUKLA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. MR PD BHATE, APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 08/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.4.93 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.107 of CR.A/622/1993 2/5 JUDGMENT 1991. The appellants were the original accused who were charged with offences punishable under section 498A as well as section 307 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Appellant No.1, original accused No.1 is the husband of Narmadaben. Appellant No.2, original accused No.2 is the mother-in-law of Narmadaben. As per the prosecution, the appellants treated Narmadaben with cruelty. On 30th March 1991 at about 10 O' clock in the morning, pursuant to a quarrel, husband of Narmadaben poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. She was, in an injured condition, carried to a hospital. Her dying declaration was recorded. However, she survived the incident. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for offence punishable under section 498- A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the appellants were, however, acquitted of charges under section 307 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. PW-1, Dr.Mansuri was examined at Ex.7. She stated that Narmadaben was brought to Surat Markati hospital where he was working as a Medical Officer. She had multiple burn injuries on various parts of her body such as, neck, hand, back, thighs, etc. She, however, left the hospital on the same day against medical advise. CR.A/622/1993 3/5 JUDGMENT 4. Dilipbhai Karnik, PW-2 was examined at Ex.11. He was the Executive Magistrate who had recorded the dying declaration of Narmadaben. In the dying declaration, Narmadaben stated that she had got married about 9 years back. Till recently, her husband used to earn and only a few days back, she started working. Her husband required money for his sister's marriage. Upon being asked, she told him that she would gather money from her employer. Her husband therefore got suspicious. Therefore, when she was coming out of toilet at 10 O' clock in the morning on 30th March 1991, her husband poured kerosene and set her ablaze. 5. Narmadaben, PW-4, was examined at Ex.16. She stated, inter alia that she was doing wiring work. On the date of the incident, she had not gone to work since she had a quarrel with her husband and in-laws. The reason for quarrel was that her husband and in-laws were demanding money from her for her sister-in-law's marriage. She told them that she would collect money after settling accounts. Upon which her husband beat her with a stick and whatever came in his hand. She therefore went towards the toilet and poured kerosene on herself. Thereafter, somebody set her on fire. She further stated that she stayed at the Civil Hospital for one-and-a-half months. She thereafter did not support the prosecution and was permitted to be cross-examined by the APP. In her cross-examination by the defence, she stated that she was not treated with cruelty. CR.A/622/1993 4/5 JUDGMENT 6. Some of the other witnesses, such as Lalitaben, PW-5, Ex.19 and Gitaben, PW-6, Ex.20, who were residing in neighbourhood also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. 7. It may be noted at the outset that Narmadaben did not allege anything against her mother-in-law so as to punish her for cruelty under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The only allegation made by her was against her husband who after a brief quarrel started beating her. Other than this allegation, there were no further allegations against her husband or other family members. Regarding the cause of her getting burnt also, she gave different versions in the complaint, in dying declaration as well as in her deposition before the Court. 8. Additionally, I also find that in her deposition before the court where she was declared as hostile also, all that she stated against accused No.1, her husband, was that after a quarrel, he started beating her. This per se would not constitute an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code since the word 'cruelty' has been given a specific meaning for the purpose of said section. Even otherwise, I find that it would be highly unsafe to base conviction of the appellants on the contradictory versions of the complainant particularly when she did not support the CR.A/622/1993 5/5 JUDGMENT prosecution. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I find that the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court is required to be set aside. 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No.107 of 1991 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted. Bail bond stands cancelled. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)