Insufficient evidence of cruelty and instigation led to the upholding of acquittal in a suicide case.

JUDGMENT :

J. C. Doshi, J.

1. By way of this appeal under section 378(1)(3) of Cr.P.C., State of Gujarat challenges judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.09.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No.98 of 2010.

2. Facts of the case are as under :-

2.1. Complainant Bhanuben, mother of the deceased registered complaint against accused with Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad which was registered as I-C.R.No.312 of 2009 for the offence under sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of IPC. It is case of prosecution that accused No.1 Mahendra was husband of deceased, accused no.2 – Kashiben was mother in law of accused and accused no.3 Parulben was sister in law of deceased. The accused no.1 was I habit of drinking liqour and he had illicit relation with accused no.3 and pursuant to that on inducement of accused nos.2 and 3, accused no.1 caused physical and mental cruelty to his wife deceased and therefore, by frustration, on 02.09.2009, deceased set herself on fire after pouring kerosene on her body and on 03.09.2009, during treatment, she died. Hence, FIR was filed.

3. Investigation was completed and after having found sufficient material against the respondent accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned CJM, Ahmedabad. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.5 against the respondent accused for the aforesaid offences. The respondent accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and also produced 12 documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in para 2 of the impugned judgment and order.

6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondent accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him. After considering evidence on record and authorities cited at bar, learned Trial Court pass impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of acquittal, present appeal is filed by the State.

7. Heard learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval for the appellant –State and learned advocate Ms.Viral Detroja for the accused.

8. Short submission of learned APP to upturn impugned judgment is that learned Trial Court failed to consider deposition of the complainant and parents of the deceased, whereby, it is specifically stated on oath that accused were demanding dowry and extending physical and mental harassment to the deceased and thereby, she committed suicide. It is submitted that learned Trial Court failed to consider marriage span which was less than 7 years and it attracts presumption of section 113(A) of the Evidence Act.

8.1. Mainly, on above submissions, it is submitted to allow the appeal and to upturn the impugned judgment and order.

9. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Viral Detroja for the accused has taken this Court through dying declaration and history given by the deceased, wherein, she has stated she was burnt