Court emphasized the necessity of establishing clear evidence of cruelty to invoke presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, reinforcing the presumption of innocence for acquitted parties.

JUDGMENT :

R. T. VACHHANI, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.01.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 102 of 1999, whereby the respondents accused came to be acquitted for the offences under Sections 498A, 306, 201, 176, 304B read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short), the appellant State has preferred the present appeal under Section 378(1)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short).

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1. The complainant Pushpaben Bhikubhai Mekwan (PW-4/Exh.28) lodged a complaint stating that her daughter Nehaben (deceased) was married to respondent No.1 Rajeshbhai Pitamber bhai Parmar on or about two years prior to the incident. Out of the said wedlock, the deceased had been blessed with a child. On 17.01.1999 at around 8:30 PM, at the matrimonial home in Thaledi Village, Petlad Taluka, Anand District, the deceased was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused persons over a quarrel regarding feeding her minor daughter. It is stated in the complaint that the respondents were giving constant torture and cruelty to the deceased on account of dowry demands, which were routed through respondent No.4 Dahiben (sister-in-law), including demands for cash from the deceased's parental side. The deceased, unable to bear the harassment, consumed Celphos poison leading to her death during treatment at the Civil Hospital, Nadiad. Further, the accused persons, knowing the unnatural death, failed to inform the police as required under Section 176 IPC and buried the body without post-mortem examination to destroy evidence. Thus, FIR being I-C.R. No. I-21 of 1999 at the instance of the complainant came to be registered against the respondents accused at Mahuva Police Station for the aforesaid offences.

2.2. In pursuance of the complaint being I-C.R. No. I-21 of 1999 lodged by the complainant with the Mahuva Police Station for the aforesaid offences, the investigating agency started usual investigation and recorded statements of the witnesses, drew various Panchnamas (including scene of offence panchnama at Exh.67 and inquest panchnama at Exh.20) and obtained FSL Report (Exh.27) for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found sufficient material against the respondents accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad. Since trial of offences alleged against accused is triable exclusively before Court of Sessions, learned CJM had committed the case to Sessions Court, Nadiad as provided in Section 209 of the CrPC.

2.3. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Nadiad, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.6 against the respondents accused for the offences under Sections 498A, 306, 201 read with Section 114 IPC. The respondents accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently, vide application under Section 216 CrPC dated 19.07.2000 (Exh.32), the prosecution sought alteration of charges to include Sections 176 and 304B read with Section 114 IPC, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 30.08.2000, and additional charges were framed u