Point of Law
Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible evidence and unless evidence is tested by cross-examination, it is not credit worthy.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant-accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 2003 under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as “the Code”) and State Government has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2003 under Section 377 of the Code. Both the Criminal Appeals are arising out of the order and judgment dated 27.06.2003 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 159 of 2002 (hereinafter referred as learned Trial Court). The learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced passed against the appellant-accused as under:

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. IG Mansuri, learned advocate for Mr. B.P. Gupta, learned advocate for the appellant-accused and Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP, for the Respondent-State.

Facts of the case:

3. Mr. Dinesh Naginbhai Chauhan who is the brother of the deceased Naynaben has filed a complaint at Kagdapith Police Station, Ahmedabad city on 23.03.2001 at 18:15 hours. The said complaint was registered as Crime No. I-94 of 2001.

4. As per the complaint, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant is residing with his mother, sister and two brothers and his father was expired before 15 years. The accused Mr. Pankaj Ambalal Parmar was residing in Jethalal chawl nearby the residence of deceased. It is stated that the accused had been constantly threatening to deceased to marry with him since last 4 – 5 years. That he used to come to near the house of the deceased and harass the deceased by making vulgar gestures. And he was writing love letters to Naynaben. And because of this mental harassment and love letters, Nayanaben had filed a complaint before the Kagdapith Police Station. She had also filed an application against the appellant -accused. The Police has filed charge sheet for that purpose. The accused Pankaj Ambalal Parmar has made compromised and agreed that he will not harass the sister of the complainant. Inspite of this, the appellant-accused continued to harass the deceased Nayanaben. That his sister Nayanaben has told to all the family members that she is tired by harassment of Pankaj. It is further stated that when the complainant had gone outside and his sisters Naynaben and Dakshaben were present at home, at that time at about 12.00 O’clock his sister Naynaben has consumed acid in the toilet because of constant harassment of Pankaj Ambalal Parmar. That Dakshaben has shouted and some people from nearby gathered. He also came there and shifted the Nayanben in rickshaw to the Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital for treatment. It is further stated that during the way to the hospital Naynaben has told him that Pankaj is harassing her and because of his harassment she could not live peacefully, therefore, she has taken this step of suicide. It is also stated that at that time, sister and neighbours were also present. Naynaben was admitted in emergency ward for treatment, at about 4:05 PM she was died, thereafter the complaint was filed.

5. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed chargesheet before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate which was registered as Criminal Case No. 1357 of 2001. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 06.07.2002 committed the case under Section 209 of the Code as the offence is triable by the Sessions Court. The case was committed to City Civil and Sessions Court and the said case was registered as Sessions Case No. 159 of 2002. The learned Trial Court has framed charge for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 509 of the IPC at Exh. No. 1 on 31.12.2002. The appellant accused has not pleaded guilty but claimed for trial. The prosecution has ex