CR.A/1890/2004 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1890 of 2004 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 ? ========================================================= GOKULBHAI HARIBHAI HARIJAN & 3 - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NK MAJMUDAR for Appellant(s) : 1 - 4. MS HANSA PUNANI, APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 22/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. In the present appeal, the appellants are the original accused. They were charged with offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. CR.A/1890/2004 2/7 JUDGMENT 2. The appellant No.1-original accused No.1 was the father-in-law of deceased Sunadaben. Appellant No.2-original accused No.2 was the husband of deceased Sunadaben. Appellant Nos.3 and 4- original accused Nos.3 and 4 were the mother-in- law and sister-in-law respectively of the deceased Sunadaben. As per the prosecution case, Sunadaben died due to burns. On 10.1.1991, she had set herself on fire after puring kerosene due to mental and physical torture meted out to her by the accused. 3. Dr. Rashmikant Chimanlal Mehta-PW1 was examined at exh.14. He had carried out the postmortem of the body of the deceased. He estimated the age of the girl at about 20 years. He opined that Sunadaben died due to burnt injuries. He had noted down the history of person receiving burnt injuries after pouring of kerosene. 4. Sukhdevbhai Sadhubhai Pawar-PW3(exh.18) was the panch witness who had drawn panchnama of the scene of offence. He had found that at the scene of incident, the floor had become black. Portions of the mattress was lying on the floor in burnt condition. There was one tin having 500 grams of kerosene. One matchbox was also found in burnt condition. 5. Jasingbhai Mangabhai Harijan-PW7 exh.28 was the father of Sunadaben. He stated that his CR.A/1890/2004 3/7 JUDGMENT daughter had got married to Vishnubhai. The incident took place about four to five years after the marriage. Sunadaben mother-in-law had come to his house and taken Sunadaben back eight days before the incident. He however, turned hostile thereafter, and did not support prosecution. 6. Mother of Sunadaben, Sushilaben-PW8 was examined at exh.29. She stated that whenever Sunadaben used to come to their house she would complaint that his parents and and sister-in-law were treating her with cruelty and were beating her. However, her mother-in-law insisted on taking her back. About eight days thereafter, the incident took place. She suspected that Sunadaben was set on fire. 7. One Panditbhai Ratanbhai-PW9 was examined at exh.30. He is brother of Sunadaben's mother. He stated that he had met Sunadaben eight days before the incident when she was at the house of Sushilaben. She had complained to him that her husband beats her after consuming liquor and the in-laws are not helping her. According to this witness, Sushilaben had taken up the issue with Sunadaben's mother-in-law. 8. Jhaklabhai Manabhai Baricha-PW10(exh.31) was the police officer who had carried out the investigation. CR.A/1890/2004 4/7 JUDGMENT 9. It is on the basis of these evidence that prosecution case is based. 10.From the above evidence, it can be seen that insofar as unnatural and suicidal death of Sunadaben is concerned, there can be no manner of doubt. Dr. Rashmikant Chimanlal Mehta-PW1 had carried out the postmortem of the dead body. He had found that lady died out of burnt injuries. Panchnama of scene of offence reveals presence of kerosene tin and also matchbox. Certain other remains in burnt condition were also recovered. Though some of the prosecution witness tried to suggest some foul play by the accused, there was no evidence at all the establish this. Thus, it cannot be denied that Sunadaben died out of burnt injuries and she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself. 11.Question is to what extent accused can be held responsible for the said death. At the outset, it may be noted that the allegations of cruelty against the accused are not sufficient to drive home the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It is by now well settled that even if charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code sustains, there has to be greater proximity to the cause of suicide with cruelty meted out on the deceased by the accused to include offence under Section 306 of Indian CR.A/1890/2004 5/7 JUDGMENT Penal Code. Cruelty should be relentless and should drag the victim to commit suicide. In short, suicide should be of direct effect and cruelty should be a cause thereof. In the present case, all that the witness has stated was that Sunadaben whenever used to visit her house used to complaint about the ill-treatment by her husband and in-laws. No specific instance of immediate cruelty are pointed out. In that view of the matter, I find that charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. 12.With respect to offence under Section 498-A is concerned, I find that insofar as accused No.4 sister-in-law of Sunadaben is concerned, the same stands not proved. Barring a general statement by mother of the deceased girl that even the sister-in-law used to treat her with cruelty, there is no evidence on record to convict the said accused under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 13.Insofar as other accused are concerned, however, I find that Sushilaben, mother of the deceased stated that Sunadaben used to complaint about cruelty at the hands of these accused. She in fact stated that Sunadaben was being beaten up by the accused. Only eight days before the incident, Sunadaben had gone to her husband's house from the house of her parents. CR.A/1890/2004 6/7 JUDGMENT At that time at the insistence of mother-in-law, Sunadaben was sent. Shortly, thereafter, the unfortunate incident took place. Additionally Panditbhai Ratanbhai-PW9 also stated that husband of Sunadaben used to beat her up consuming liquor and parents would not intervene. 14.Combined effect of the evidence of these two witnesses and undeniable fact that the girl apparently aged 20 years committed suicide only eight days after she returned from her husband's place, would establish that she was being subjected to cruelty by accused Nos. 1 to 3. 15.In the result, I find that charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot sustain against any of the accused. They are therefore, acquitted of the said charge. 16.Insofar as accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was rightly held to have been proved. Conviction and sentence under the said Section is therefore, upheld. 17.Accused No.4 i.e. appellant No.4 herein is acquitted of all the charges including one under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 18.The appeal is disposed of in above terms. (Akil Kureshi,J.) CR.A/1890/2004 7/7 JUDGMENT (raghu)