The court ruled that mere marriage duration does not justify presumption of abetment of suicide; clear evidence of mens rea is required for conviction under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appeal has been filed by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.5, Nadiad in Sessions Case no.74 of 2008.

2. The charge was framed under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”). The charge states that the deceased had married accused no.1–Mahendrasinh @ Jigo Natwarbhai Gohel and the matrimonial relation was of 3 years. After about one year of marriage, the complainant alleged that all the accused had started harassing the accused on the ground that she was not well-versed with the domestic work and when she conceived and was with five months’ foetus, they started making false allegations regarding her character, and that mental and physical harassment has resulted into cruelty and that when it was unbearable, on 13.4.2008 at about 09 O’Clock, she consumed poison at Khodiyarpara Chhapra and committed suicide and therefore, the charge for abetment to commit suicide was framed.

3. Ms. Asmita Patel, learned APP has submitted that the Trial Court judgment is erroneous and contrary to law. The learned Judge has failed to appreciate the marriage span to draw presumption and when the witness had proved by way of their testimony the cruelty suffered by the deceased, then, the learned Judge was required to draw presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned APP has submitted that the cause of death was consumption of the poisonous substance andosalfa, which could be identified through the postmortem.The learned APP has submitted that the offence becomes very serious as the deceased was having a foetus in her womb and she ended her life along with the future child. This very aspect itself proves that it was unbearable physical and mental torture, which she suffered only because of the quarrel regarding household work and further allegation that she was pregnant by way of infidelity.

4. The learned APP has submitted that the deposition of the witness-complainant – Khodabhai Chhaganbhai Parmar clarifies the cruelty suffered by the daughter. The witness – Bharatbhai Khodabhai Sodha Parmar, brother of the deceased has referred to quarrels, which often took place because of the household work. The deceased was beaten up and was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. On 12.4.2008, the accused Mahendra–husband came to the house and made allegation against the daughter who was pregnant alleging that the child was of one Lalabhai who was often making phone calls to her.

5. The witness – Sonalben Bharatbhai Sodha Parmar was also examined to prove that the deceased had informed her about the quarrels and the beatings and further about the physical and mental cruelty. The learned APP has submitted that the harassment and the cruelty doubting her character, had led to such unavoidable circumstances for the deceased that she had no other alternative, but to commit suicide. The learned APP further submitted that the witness – Shanabhai Lakhabhai Sodha Parmar has also corroborated the evidence of the witnesses. The witness – Ranchhodbhai Hathibhai has deposed about the fact that he was a witness, where the father-in-law of the deceased had come to take her back and given assurance that they would not harass her from then. However, even after sending the deceased back, the harassment continued. The learned APP has submitted that the witness – Laljibhai Pratapbhai Sodha Parmar, against whom there is an allegation of having relation with the deceased, has categorically deposed that all the allegations were false and baseless and further the mother of the deceased Surajben Khodabhai Sodha Parmar has also given the details of the mental harassment to her with regard to household domestic work and also of the allegation against her character when her daughter was four months pregnant.

6. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval