The presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A cannot be applied without proof of cruelty or dowry demand, and the acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appeal, arising from the acquittal judgment and order under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 3.11.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, 3^rd Fast Track Court, Gondal Camp at Upleta in Sessions Case no.2 of 2007. The offence was registered under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Upleta Police Station, Rajkot.

2. The charge was drawn below Exh.1 by the Presiding Officer on 17.4.2007 to note that the complainant’s daughter Bhavnaben had married to accused no.1 one year prior to the incident. Accused nos.2 and 3 are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the accused no.1 while accused no.4 is the mother of accused no.1. The charge further notes that the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law, accused nos.2 and 3 were staying besides them and the deceased was staying along with the accused-husband and accused no.4 – mother-in- law. During that period, by instigation of each other, they used to harass her during her matrimonial life that she does not know how to do the household work, nor has she brought anything from her parental house. The charge states that because of such cruelty, the accused have abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thereby, on 20.7.2006 at about 20:00 hrs. at Vadla Village, she took the last step by consuming poisonous medicine.

3. Mr. Rohan H. Raval, learned APP has submitted that the evidence has not been appreciated in right perspective. The prosecution had examine 13 witnesses in support of the case. The documentary evidence was also available on record to corroborate the oral evidence. Mr. Raval has submitted that the judgment suffers from perversity as there are not legal or factual aspects on record. Mr. Raval has also stated that the learned Judge was required to draw the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 since the suicide was after four months of marriage. Mr. Raval has further stated that it was the duty of the accused to explain how and under what circumstances, the death of the deceased had occurred in their residence and what was the reason for her to commit suicide. Learned APP has submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the provisions of law and has failed to consider the evidence on record that after marriage, all the four had mentally and physically harassed the deceased by stating that she was not knowning any work and the cruelty subjected to her was the cause of inducement to commit suicide.

4. Learned APP has submitted that the complainant-Budhiben, wife of Nathabhai was examined vide Exh.21 who has supported the FIR, which was produced at Exh.22, which clearly mention how the incident had occurred. The learned Judge has erred to disbelieve and discard the evidence by coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned APP has submitted that the case has been proved by the inquest Panchnama, scene of offence, FSL report, Muddamal, inspite of that, the learned Judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution. The learned APP has submitted that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of Dr. Laxmanbhai Kababhai Parmar who was examined at Exh.25 who has fully supported the prosecution case with regard to injuries on the dead body of the deceased. The case has been clearly proved that because of mental cruelty by the accused, she has committed suicide by consuming poison and though ample evidence was on record, the learned Judge has erred in not considering the witness.

5. Countering the arguments, Advocate Mr. Sandip M.Patel for the accused has submitted that the prosecution has examined almost about 13 vital witnesses, but none of the witnesses could prove the case of any cruelty or any cause, which would be noted of any abetment of suicide. Learned advocate Mr. Sandip Patel has submitted that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on reco