Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.11.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Jalore, Camp Bhinmal, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused respondent, Mukesh, for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 31.10.2008, the 'Parcha Bayan' (Ex.P/35) of Smt. Geeta, was recorded by the SHO, Rajiv Parihar (P.W.14). In the parcha bayan, Smt. Geeta had claimed that she was married to Mukesh, four years prior to her giving the statement. She further alleged that her husband had stopped speaking to her about two months prior to the incident. She claimed that fifteen days earlier, Mukesh had assaulted her with kicks and wooden handle of an axe. However, she did not inform her parents about the said incident. According to her, on 7.30 A.M., in the morning, while she was staying in her in-laws place, her husband had told her that she was in the habit of laughing too much, of speaking to others, and of eating gutkha. However, these habits she had already improved upon. However, according to her, in the morning, while her husband was sleeping, she poured kerosene on herself and burned herself. She had done so because Mukesh used to tell her that "she should kill herself". Because of the harassment meted out by the husband, she has burned herself. On the basis of this 'parcha bayan', the police registered a formal FIR, FIR No. 284/2008, for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.

3. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, and submitted thirty-eight documents. In turn, the accused-respondent examined himself as a witness, and submitted a few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 18.11.2009, the learned Judge acquitted the accused respondent, Mukesh. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this court.

4. Mr. Pradeep Shah, the learned counsel for the complainant, has raised the following contentions before this Court; firstly, the learned judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. In fact, the learned Judge has not appreciated the evidence at all. According to him, Smt. Geeta had claimed that she was taunted by her husband, for her habit of laughing too much, speaking to others, and of eating gutkha; the habits that she had already changed. Moreover, just fifteen days prior to the incident, her husband had assaulted her with kicks and with the handle of an axe. Therefore, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. It is due to these mental and physical cruelties, that she had committed suicide. Hence, there was ample evidence to make out a case for offences under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.

5. Similarly, Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that according to Smt. Geeta, her husband had stopped speaking to her two months prior to the incident. Husband's non-speaking to the wife also amounts to cruelty. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor also, the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the accused respondent.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that a distinction has to be made between "the normal wear and tear of a married life", and "cruelty" inflicted on a wife. Moreover, a live link has to exist between the commission of suicide and abetment of suicide. According to the learned counsel, Smt. Geeta has merely mentioned that fifteen days prior to the incident, she was physically assaulted. However, fifteen days' time is sufficient for differences between the husband and the wife to die down. Therefore, the assault allegedly committed on her, could not be the reason for her to commit suicide. Thirdly, that there is a contradiction between the two dying declarations given by her, namely 'parcha bayan' (Ex.P/35), and the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (Ex.P/33). Fourthly, that according to her, when sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document