The court underlined that mere allegations of harassment must be substantiated by credible evidence to uphold a conviction under Section 498A IPC.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Both the appeals have been filed by the State aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 27.08.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.158 of 2007, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 498A of INDIAN PENAL CODE , (for short ‘IPC’), for a period of one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine one month imprisonment. While, learned Sessions Judge acquitted both the accused for the offence under Sections 323 , 306 and 114 of IPC, and further accused No.2 – Sumanben Madhukarbhai Sampatbhai Adhav was also acquitted for the offence under Section 498A IPC.

2. Criminal Appeal No.2618 of 2008 is filed under Section 377 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 (for short ‘CrPC) for enhancement of the sentence. While Criminal Appeal No.2621 of 2008 is filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the CrPC to set aside the order of acquittal and to convict both the accused for the offences, as charged.

3. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt referring to the depositions of all the witnesses, which are 11 in number submitted that there were evidence on record to conclude the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. All the witnesses of the family members of deceased - Hanshaben Gopalbhai Adhav has deposed of the harassment by both husband and the mother-in- law. Even after staying separately, there was harassment from both the husband and the mother-in-law and though, facts have been proved, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in disbelieving the witnesses.

3.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that in the incident, over and above Hanshaben, the minor daughter-Janvi aged about one and half year also died. The said fact, Ms. Bhatt submitted that, makes it very much obvious on record to consider the harassment, which was suffered by the deceased. Learned APP submitted that the complaint proves the continuous mental and physical torture to the deceased and that learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the important vital evidence in right spirit and has erred in acquitting the accused.

3.2 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt further submitted that the evidence on record by way of Section 313 of the CrPC has mislead the Court, while the dying declaration proves the cruelty which the deceased suffered and therefore, submitted that the punishment only under Section 498A of IPC is insufficient and the learned Trial Court was required to see the case of suicide and ought to have punished the husband and even the mother-in-law so as to create a deterrent effect since, the cruelty of the husband and the mother-in-law had led the wife to commit suicide and thus, there is clear case of abetment to suicide.

4. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Matafer R.Pande submitted that the evidence on record has been proved that the mother-in-law was not staying along with the accused No.1 and the deceased Hanshaben. The evidence of the neighbour (PW6), though has been declared hostile, itself proves the fact that deceased-Hanshaben and accused Gopalbhai were staying separately. The allegations against the mother-in-law are general in nature. There are no specific details of any harassment and the dying declaration itself proves that deceased – Hanshaben on her own had committed suicide and there was not instigation from any of the accused. At the time of committing sui