ORAL JUDGMENT

The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

28.08.1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1996, whereby the present appellants–original accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to be convicted for the offences under section 323, 306 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `IPC’). For the offence under section 323 read with section 114, IPC they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. In respect of conviction under section 306 read with section 114, IPC they came to be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- each, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed that the amount of fine of Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to the complainant by way of compensation.

2. The complaint (Exh.9) lodged by Radhabai, wife of the deceased Somabhai revealing the prosecution case mentioned that her husband was working as labourer in the field of appellant No.1-Sureshbhai, and was receiving lumpsum payment. On 22.11.1995, appellant–accused No.1 came to their house to complain that her husband was not coming to work. Thereafter, accused No.1 dragged Somabhai out of the house and gave ultimatum that he will have to resume work within two days. The complaint proceeded further to state that on the same day again at around 9.00 a.m., accused No.1 came back accompanied by his son Jayesh–accused No.2. They again asked the husband of the complainant to come to work. They also asked him to return the money borrowed from them. Then, they started pulling the complainant’s husband Somabhai, and when the complainant intervened, accused No.2 pushed her back, as a result of which, she fell down. Both accused No.1 and 2 took Somabhai to their house, and she also followed them. The complainant stated that she returned home after some time as her husband Somabhai went together with accused No.1 to the field taking the cart along with him. At around 1.30 p.m., one Kantibhai brought the body of Somabhai, and stated that Somabhai had committed suicide by taking pesticide. He was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. Thus, in nutshell it was the case in the complaint that both the accused trespassed the house, dragged and insulted Somabhai, and gave two slaps. It was alleged that as a result of such acts and conduct on the part of the appellants-accused, her husband committed suicide by taking pesticide.

3. First Information Report was registered for the offences under sections 306, 452, 323 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as for the offence under section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as `the Atrocity Act’). The case was registered as Atrocity Case No. 38 of 1996. The charge was framed at Exh.4. In course of trial, the prosecution examined witnesses, and led documentary evidence. Both the accused came to be acquitted for the offence under the Atrocity Act, however, they came to be convicted for the other offences as stated above.

4. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel for the appellants submitted with reference to the evidence of Radhabai (PW-1, Exh.8), the evidence of Chimanbhai Babubhai (PW-11, Exh.3) and the contents of the complaint (Exh.9) that from the evidence on record, different causes of death were indicated. He next submitted that evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was inconsistent in terms of time of occurrence as well as the manner of occurrence of the incident. It was submitted that the ingredients of offence under section 306 were not satisfied; that there was no instigation within the meaning of section 107 of the Code. It was submitted