IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish abetment of suicide; clear evidence of intent and coercion is required.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat (original complainant) under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01/05/2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Himmatnagar camp at Idar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Sessions Case No. 125 of 2008, whereby, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted the original accused respondent herein for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”).

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

2.1 At about 16:30 hours, at Bhiloda Cottage Hospital Quarter, the respondent accused was causing mental and physical harassment to the deceased daughter of the informant Dr. Gloriyaben, who was aged about 37 years, since last 12 years and also by beating her very often and insulting her and the respondent accused subjected her to cruelty, thereby, induced her to commit suicide, and thereby, committed offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498(A) the Indian Penal Code. The respondent accused also threatened to commit murder of the deceased Dr. Gloriyaben, and thereby, committed offences punishable under Section 506(2) the Indian Penal Code. The respondent herein was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498 (A) and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code. The complainant Vishrambhai Valjibhai Pandav father of the deceased therefore, registered a complaint against the respondent accused with Bhiloda Police Station, Sabarkantha for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498 (A) and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code.

2.2 Upon such complaint, investigation was commenced and on conclusion of the investigation, on the basis of the material collected against the respondent-accused, since the Investigating Officer found a prima-facie case against the respondent-accused, charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Idar for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

2.3 As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhoraji committed the case to Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No. 125 of 2008. Thereafter, charge was framed at Exh.5 by the learned Sessions Judge against the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, led evidence.

2.4 In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses as well as produced several documentary evidences on the record of the case, which are as under:

ORAL EVIDENCES:

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES: