( 1 ) THE appellants-orig. accused (hereinafter referred to as the appellants ) have preferred present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21st February 2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 11th Fast Track Court, Gondal and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2004, whereby the learned trial Judge has held the appellants guilty for the charge of offence punishable under Section 498 (A) read with Section 114, and also under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant no. 1 is imposed simple imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498 (A) read with Section 114 and to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The indefault punishment i. e. for non-payment of amount of fine, imposed for both these offences, is of 4 months and 6 months respectively. The appellant nos. 2 and 3 are imposed simple imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 498 (A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/ -. The indefault punishment i. e. for non-payment of amount of fine, imposed is of 2 moths and 3 months for both these offences to both the appellant nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The appellants have been given benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been assailed by way of present appeal. I am told that the present appellant nos. 2 and 3 are on bail. However, the appellant, husband of the victim-deceased Sonalben, is in prison.

( 3 ) SHRI Jayesh Dave, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has taken me through the various grounds mentioned in the memo of the appeal and oral as well as documentary evidence led during the course of trial. It is submitted that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is bad and the same cannot sustain in the eye of law as the same is based on assumptions and illegal inferences. Material errors while appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence have been committed by the learned trial Judge and this has resulted into an erroneous conviction of the appellants.

( 4 ) THE main submissions of Shri Jayesh Dave are as under : the prosecution has not satisfactorily proved that the death of victim-Sonal was a suicidal death.

( 5 ) IF the Court is of the view that the death of victim-Sonal was a suicidal death, there is no evidence on record to show that any of the appellants can be said to have abetted the act of suicide and, therefore, they cannot be linked with the crime punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the settled legal position, the prosecution is supposed to prove by leading cogent and convincing evidence that some act or omission had direct nexus with the act of suicide and there is no such evidence on record. Neither any independent witness has been examined to prove such nexus nor any circumstantial evidence has emerged under which the Court can legitimately infer that this is a case of abetment in the act of suicide by victim-Sonal.

( 6 ) THERE are number of contradictions and conflicts in the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution when the prosecution attempted to prove the guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. As such there is no convincing evidence that the victim-Sonal was treated with cruelty punishable under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, some difference of opinion or any quarrel in the conduct reflecting d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document