Point of Law
Before a person can be held guilty for abetting the commission of suicide, the prosecution must establish by cogent, convincing and overwhelming evidence that the accused intended the consequences of the act namely suicide and abetted the suicide within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC. Mere harassment or cruelty which drags the woman to commit suicide is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants-accused have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “the Code”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and judgment dated 10.07.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.191 of 2000.

2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, for the appellants and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for respondent – State.

Order under Challenge:

3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara has vide judgment and order dated 10.07.2003, convicted the appellants under Section 235(2) of the Code, for the offences under Sections 498(A), 306, 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity “IPC”) and under Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for brevity the “Dowry Act”) and awarded sentence for the offences as under :-

Arguments of the Appellants:

4. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala has submitted that Chandanben W/o. Bhagwatibhai Gordhanbhai Panchal - the appellant No.2 (Original accused No.2) has died on 21/12/2016. He has produced the copy of death certificate bearing Registration No. VMC/2017/00062 dated 03/01/2017 issued by the Competent Authority, Health Department (Birth-Death Division), Municipal Corporation, Vadodara.

5. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and order of conviction is bad in law, against the weight of evidence and contrary to the well settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. That, this appeal substantially give rise to two questions of law :-

(a) taking the allegations at the face value and the evidence on record can it be said that the accused persons have abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Kokila within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC punishable under Section 306 of IPC? And

(b) whether cross examination is the only mode of discrediting a prosecution witnesses and even in the absence of adequate cross examination of the witnesses if no offence is disclosed then whether the trial court is justified in convicting the accused person?

5.1 The learned advocate further submitted that the marriage of the appellant No. 1 with the deceased Kokila solemnized on 10/07/1997 and the unfortunate incident was taken place on 14/03/1998. As such, only 08 months of marriage span. Moreover, the marriage of the appellant No. 1 with the deceased Kokila was second in point of time. Facts of first marriage of the deceased Kokila with one Sanjaykumar Arvindbhai Panchal and her divorce had not been disclose to the appellants' family. So far as the harassment is concerned, the P.W. No. 1 father of the deceased has in his deposition stated that there was some harassment at the end of appellants as far as preparing of food and that there was a demand of a gold chain and a ring. However, except oral evidence nothing has been produced on record by the prosecution.

5.2 The learned advocate further submitted that the learned Trial Court has relied only on oral evidences. That, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses like neighbours. It is requested to allow appeal and set aside the conviction and acquit the appellant.

Arguments for the prosecution:

6. Learned APP for the Respondent-State