For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or incitement to suicide is essential; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

1. Criminal Appeal No. 1483 of 2008 has been filed by the appellant - State against the respondents - original accused nos. 1 and 2 of Sessions Case No. 62 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No. 1484 of 2008 has been filed by the appellant - State against the respondents - original accused nos. 1 and 2 of Sessions Case No. 63 of 2006 under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the common judgement and order of acquittal passed on 16.02.2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 7, Gondal, Camp at Dhoraji, (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”).

1.1 Both the Sessions Cases arose out of the same FIR registered with PatanVav Police Station I – C.R. No. 43 of 2004 under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC, wherein, the respondents of Criminal Appeal No. 1483 of 2008 were shown as accused nos. 1 and 2 and the respondents of Criminal Appeal No. 1484 of 2008 were shown as original accused nos. 3 and 4.

1.2 As both the Sessions Cases had risen out of the same FIR and separate chargesheets were filed, both the cases were consolidated by the learned Trial Court and the accused were referred to in the rank and file as they stood in the FIR and the cases were disposed off by a common judgement and order.

1.3 The same judgment and order is under challenge in both the appeals and hence they are disposed off by a common judgment. The respondents of Criminal Appeal No. 1483/2008 and respondents of Criminal Appeal No. 1484/2008 are referred to as the accused in the rank and file as they stood in the FIR and common judgement for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1 The accused no. 1 - Vanrajsinh Bahudursinh Parmar was married to Prakashba on 07.05.1999 and the accused nos. 2 and 4 - Jayshreeba Bahadursinh Parmar and Gitaba Bahdursinh Parmar respectively were the sisters-in-law and accused no. 3 - Kanchanba Bahadursinh Parmar was the mother-in-law of Prakashba. During the marriage span of five years, Prakashbhai could not bear a child, and all the accused used to mentally and physically harass Prakashba and call her barren and Prakashba left her matrimonial house and came to her parental house. On 14.09.2004, the brother-in-law - N. J. Chudasama came to the parental house of Prakashba and a conversation of compromise and sending her back to her matrimonial house had taken place which was heard by Prakashba. She felt that they would send her back to the matrimonial house and as she was afraid that her in-laws would physically assault her or kill her, on 16.06.2004 before 3:30 am, she sprinkled kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze and expired. A complaint was filed by her brother - Dashrathsinh Nanbha Jadeja which was registered at PatanVav Police Station I – C.R. No.43 of 2004 under Sections 306, 114 of the IPC.

2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, the police filed the chargesheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhoraji and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Gondal Camp at Dhoraji as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No. 62/2006 and Sessions Case no.63/2006.

2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge at Exh. 23 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 24 to 27, wherein, all the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution has pro