Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.J. THAKER, J.
STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant
Versus
MAHENDRASINH HAKUMATSINH VAGHELA & 3 - Opponents/Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 812 of 2003
Decided on: 09/02/2015
Criminal Appeal - Offence under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code - Evidence Act, 1973 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 113-A, 306, 114 of IPC, Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The judgment discusses the provisions of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, Sections 306 and 114 of IPC, and Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and their interpretations in the context of abetment of suicide and presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased committed suicide due to alleged mental and physical harassment by the accused for inadequate dowry. The prosecution presented evidence and witnesses to support the charges, but the Trial Court acquitted the accused of all charges.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the evidence and legal provisions, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against accused nos. 2 to 4. However, accused no.1 was convicted under Sections 498(A) read with 306 of IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused were guilty of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of IPC, and whether the evidence and legal provisions supported the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principles of abetment of suicide, presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman, and the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to determine the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal against accused nos. 2 to 4 was dismissed, confirming their acquittal. Accused no.1 was convicted under Sections 498(A) read with 306 of IPC.
1. The State has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2003 rendered by the learned 2nd Fast Track Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No.116 of 2002. The said case was registered against the present respondents-original accused for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
2. The original complainant filed Criminal Revision Application No.283/2003, wherein on 19.01.2015, this Court passed the following order:
“Learned Advocate Mr. R.C. Kakkad states that he may be permitted to appear with the prosecution. He seeks permission to withdraw the Criminal Revision Application No.283/2003. However, the papers should not be de-linked. The papers should be kept with Criminal Appeal No.812/2003 and the grounds urged in the Criminal Revision Application also are to be treated as part of the memo of the Appeal. All the matters be listed for final hearing on 9th FEBRUARY, 2015.”
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Complainant-Ranubha Chenubha Jadeja is residing at Village Mungni, Tal: Sikka Dist:
Jamnagar with his family and he is maintaining his family by doing agricultural work. It is
further case of the prosecution that his deceased-daughter Hinaben was married to accused no.1 six months prior to the incident and the deceased was residing with her in-laws in a joint family. After her marriage, she had come to her parental house seven or eight times and complained to her parents that accused no.1-Mahndrasinh-her husband and accused no.3-her mother-in-law, Taraba were taunting her on account of inadequate dowry brought at the time of her marriage. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused were demanding clothes, money, gold and furniture from her parents. The complainant on the demand of the accused once paid Rs.5000/-. However, the accused continued their demand and as the demand was not complied with, they tortured the deceased mentally and physically. That ultimately as the harassment became unbearable, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene herself on her body and setting herself on fire. Thereafter, she was taken to the Government Hospital, Amreli where she expired. On these facts, the complaint was registered being I-C.R.No.97/2002 with Amreli City Police Station.
4. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the learned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. committed the said case to the Court of 2nd Fast Track Court, Amreli, which was, thereafter, numbered as Sessions Case No.116/2002. Since the opponents-accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, they were tried for the alleged offences.
5. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
| P.W. Nos. | Witnesses | Exhibit Nos. |
| 1 | Dr. Hareshbhai Dalsukhbai Yadav | 13 |
| 2 | Anilbhai Natvarlal Ghamecha | 17 |
| 3 | Complainant-Ranubha Chenubha | 20 |
| 4 | Narharibhai Ravjibhai Patel | 22 |
| 5 | Diluba Ranubha Jadeja | 25 |
| 6 | Kalubha Dipsinh Jadeja | 27 |
| 7 | I.O. Gandabhai Kalabhai Desai | 30 |
6. The prosecution has led the following documentary evidence in support of its case:
| Sr. Nos. | Documentary evidence | Exhibit Nos. |
| 1 | Letter for P.M. Note | 14 |
| 2 | P.M. Note of deceased-Hinaben | 15 |
| 3 | Letter for giving cloths of the deceased to Amreli Police Station | 16 |
| 4 | Scene of offence panchnama | 18 |
| 5 | Inquest panchnama | 19 |
| 6 | Complaint | 21 |
| 7 | Report of PSO Amreli | 23 |
| 8 | Report of scene of offence prepared by FSL Officer | 33 |
| 9 | Receipt of dead body of deceased was given to Ranubha Manubha | 34 |
| 10 | Letter of muddamal was send to Che | |
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
