The presumption of innocence prevails in acquittal cases; mere suicide within seven years of marriage does not establish guilt without proof of cruelty or dowry demand.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal filed under Sections 378(1)((3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.03.2008 passed by the learned Fast Track Court, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.195 of 2007. The offence was registered under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The FIR was registered at Vejalpur Police Station and after the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

2. The incident had occurred on 09.11.2006 at about 1.00 in the afternoon, where the victim deceased - Sunitaben committed suicide by hanging herself with the ‘Duptta’, tied on her neck attached to the pipe of the ceiling of the matrimonial house. The allegation is that the cause of suicide is the mental and physical cruelty meted at the hands of the accused, who are husband, younger brother-in-law and mother-in-law. The father of the deceased Bhanubhai Bhulabhai Chunara gave the complaint on 11.11.2006 at about 19:55 in the evening.

3. Learned APP Mr. Rohan H. Raval has submitted that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to the law and evidence on record. The prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Judge was required to appreciate the evidence of Prosecution Witness No.4, the complainant – Bhanubahi Bhulabhai Chunara, who has been examined at Exh.20, who had very categorically deposed in his testimony that prior to two years of the incident, Sunita got married with accused No.1. He had stated that Sunita used to tell him that her husband was doubting her character and thereby beating her, so also demanding dowry.

4. Learned APP Mr. Raval has further stated that one year prior to her committing suicide, the daughter of the complainant had come back but due to the intervention of the community people, she had been sent back. He stated that on the date of the incident, he received a phone call from his son Alpeshbhai Bhanubhai Chunara that Sunita was not well. On reaching there he found that Sunita was lying on the cot, they took their daughter to V.S. Hospital, where she was declared dead by the Doctor. Learned APP submitted that the complaint - Exh.21 was proved. The witness was extensively cross- examined by the other side, but nothing adverse has come to be elicited.

5. Learned APP has further submitted that the Prosecution Witness No.5 – Manjuben Bhanubhai Chunara, the mother of the deceased, was examined at Exh.23, who has also stated the same fact that the husband of Sunita was doubting her character and was demanding dowry. Learned APP submitted that the mother has also confirmed the fact of intervention by the community people for sending her back. She also clarified the fact that she was subjected to cruelty.

6. Learned APP has stated that the Prosecution Witness No.6 – Alpeshbhai Bhanubhai Chunara, the brother of the deceased examined at Exh.24, has stated about the fact that the deceased used to tell him that her husband was doubting her character and beating her and also demanding dowry. Learned APP has submitted that the postmortem report of the Doctor Tapan G. Mehta (P.W.3), who has been examined at Exh.18 and his statement, categorically shows that there was external injury and the cause of death is stated to be suffocation. Learned APP stated that ligature marks were found on the neck of the deceased. The Doctor has confirmed that, if someone tries to commit suicide by hanging herself with ‘Dupatta’, the said mark could be found.

7. Learned APP further submitted that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. However, the evidence on record of the P.S.I. – Shivlal Ravandas Raval (P.W.9), I.O. – Rameshchandra Madhavlal Patel (P.W.10) and the P.S.O. - Kiransinh Chandubha Jadeja (P.W.8), clearly corroborates the evidence of other witnesses. The learned Judge has erred in acquitting them. He submitted that the learned Judge was required to