Prosecution failed to establish charges of murder and dowry harassment due to lack of evidence and contradictory witness testimonies, resulting in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. Assailing the judgment dated 30/04/2013 passed in Sessions Case No.84 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar whereby the sole accused in the said case who was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE was acquitted, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State.

2. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal as per the case of the prosecution may briefly be stated as follows:

2.1. The deceased by name Kausharben (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceases’) is the legally wedded wife of the accused. Their marriage was solemnized about two years prior to her death which took place on 15/03/2011. They are not blessed with children during their lawful wedlock. It is stated that six months after their marriage, the accused and his family members who are his mother and father etc. started harassing the deceased suspecting her fidelity attributing an illegal contact to her with PW-5 who is the husband of the friend of the deceased. It is stated that they also used to demand dowry from her and harassed her. There were disputes between the couple in this regard. So when the deceased was in the house of her parents on account of the said disputes between herself and her husband, as per the prosecution case, reconciliation took place and the deceased was again taken back to the house of the accused and they were living together.

2.2. While so, on 15/03/2011, in the morning, PW-7 who is the uncle of the deceased informed PW-1 who is the father of the deceased that his daughter died in the house of the accused. As both the accused and the parents of the deceased are residing in the same town, PW-1 along with his family members reached the house of A-1 in the early hours of 15/03/2011 and suspected that the deceased died in suspicious circumstances and they immediately took her to the hospital at Sihor. The doctor who examined her declared that she already died. PW-1 who is her father initially suspected that poison was administered to her and she died because of consuming poison. On intimation of death of the deceased to the police, the police registered a case under Sections 302 and 498(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Thereafter, inquest was held over her dead body. In the inquest it is opined that she might have died of consuming poison and cause of death is to be ascertained. Thereafter, autopsy was held over her dead body. The doctor initially opined that the cause of death can be ascertained only after chemical examination of viscera. After examination of the viscera, it is finally opined that her death due to strangulation cannot be ruled out but the definite and apparent cause of her death could not be ascertained in the postmortem examination also.

3. During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer has examined the parents of the deceased, PW-1 and PW-3 and the doctor who performed autopsy, PW-2 and the mediators in whose presence the scene of offence was observed and other witnesses. The dupatta alleged to have been used for slaying the deceased was seized. After completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE alleging that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased attributing an extra marital relation to her with PW-5 and with the said motive that he has subjected her to strangulation at about 2:30 a.m. on 15/03/2011 with her dupatta and thereby killed her and committed murder of the deceased.

4. After committal of the case to the sessions division by the committal court, the case was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar for trial. The trial court has framed the charges under Sections 302 and 498 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the accused. The same were read over and explained to him in his vernacular language. The accused denied to