The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to prove guilt, especially in cases of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA M. SAREEN, J.

1. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 30.06.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1994 acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 to 3-original accused Nos. 1 to 3 from the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 302, 114 and 201 of Indian Penal Code.

It is pertinent to note that the respondent No. 1-original accused No. 1 has expired during the pendency of the proceedings and hence the present appeal stood abated qua respondent No. 1 vide order dated 20.06.2022.

2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell is as under:

The F.I.R. is lodged by one Lalji Gopal Bhanushali of Nalia on 26.12.1993 at 5.30 but the hours are not written so it is assumed that it is 5.30 in the morning. In the F.I.R. the names of all the three accused are mentioned. According to the F.I.R. the incident is alleged to have taken place on 25.12.1993 at 12.00 hours. The complainant and Lalji Gopal is resident of Nalia. He has two sons and two daughters. The eldest daughter Jashoda was married to Naran Narabi, accused No. 2. Jashoda had two years old son Deepak. Jashoda Used to reside with her husband Naran who resides at Bombay for his business. After marriage, Jashoda used to often visit to the house of her parents at Modkuba. The complainant alleges that mother-in-law Savitri of Jashoda, her father-in-law Narshi Shivaji and her husband Naran Narshi on account of dowry used to taunt her and she was not allowed to go out of house. Even she was beaten and thus, she was mentally and physically harassed by them. This was conveyed by deceased Jashoda to the complainant and her mother and both the complainant and his wife appraised her as and when need arose and she was sent to her in-law about two years back when he received Modkuba the willing of in-laws of Jashoda, he found that he was beaten and was harassed. He, therefore, took per to his own house at Nalia and this was conveyed to one Mithubhai and Virjibhai of village Nalia who gave an undertaking that this will not happen again and, therefore, the complainant again sent his daughter Jashoda to her husband and in-laws at village Modkuba. Lastly, the complainant visited Jashoda’s in-laws village Modkuba and her husband when her grand-father-in-law died before three months back. At that time also Jashoda complained to them that she was harassed on account of dowry and petty domestic work. At that time, she was taken by the complainant to his house and again after two days she was appraised and sent back to his in-laws. On 25.12.1993 at about 5.00 p.m. one Damji Bhanushali of Modkuba came to the complainant at his village and told him that his daughter is burnt in the bathroom. The complainant, therefore, alongwith his wife went in a taxi to Modkuba and on enquiry and on seeing on the top of the bathroom he found that his daughter Jashoda sprinkled kerosene on her body and died. At about 12 noon when there was none in the house, she closed the bathroom from inside and set fire to herself. According to him, his daughter Jashoda after her marriage was harassed by her in-laws on petty matters and dowry and she was physically and mentally harassed. Tiring thereof, he alleges that Jashoda sprinkled kerosene on her body and committed suicide.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was started, statement of witnesses were recorded, inquest panchnama was carried out, panchnama of scene of offence was carried out, postmortem report was obtained and after through investigation, as there was sufficient evidence against the respondents-accused persons, Charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence committed by the accused persons was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions as per the provisions of Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Judge was p