The insufficient evidence of persistent harassment and faulty dying declarations led to the dismissal of the appeal against acquittal under IPC Sections 498-A and 306.

JUDGEMENT

1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 29th April, 1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.111 of 1989 whereby, the respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them under the provisions of sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The charge against the respondents was to the effect that the accused No.1 and accused No.2 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of deceased Madhuben and as such, they are relatives of Madhuben’s husband. The accused were time and again quarrelling with the deceased in relation to household things and were, accordingly, subjecting her to harassment. By doing so, the accused have committed the offence under section 498A read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code .

Moreover, the accused No.1 on account of instigation on the part of the accused No.2 had, on 8th April, 1989 at one o’clock in the afternoon, gone to the house of Madhuben, at Bhavnagar and quarrelled with her and had alleged that she was a prostitute. Madhuben could not tolerate the harassment meted out to her and was instigated to commit suicide. She, therefore, sprinkled kerosene over her body and set herself to fire and committed suicide. By doing so, the accused have committed the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution case is to the effect that one Velubha Bhikhubha Zala, Head Constable, “C” Division Police Station, Bhavnagar had recorded a first information report at the instance of Madhuben Pravinbhai who had stated that she was residing with her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law at the address stated in the first information report and was doing household work. Her marriage had taken place one year prior to the incident. On the day of the incident at one o’clock, she was at home. Her husband and mother-in- law had gone out. At that time, her brother-in-law Rameshbhai came to her house and fought with her and told her that she was a prostitute. Her sister in-law was at her own residence and her brother-in-law had thereafter gone back to his house and she had poured five litres of kerosene over her body and lighted a match stick and set herself to fire. When her body started burning, she started screaming due to which, her neighbours Lalitaben (Babubhai), Vinodbhai, etc. came to douse the flames. Together with them, her sister-in-law Ramaben had also come and she was immediately taken for treatment in a government car, and she was admitted to the Burns Ward. She was undergoing treatment and was fully conscious. There was no harassment from her husband and her mother-in-law and that she, her mother-in-law and her husband were living together peacefully. That her brother-in- law Rameshbhai was quarrelling with her since the last two days and her sister-in-law was filling his ears with falsehood due to which her brother-in-law Rameshbhai had come in the afternoon and quarrelled with her and called her a prostitute which she had taken to heart, hence, she had sprinkled kerosene on herself and had sustained burns right from her head to her ankles. That both her eyes and hair had also got burnt. She has further stated that her brother-in-law and sister- in-law were residing separately since the last one month within the same compound and that her brother-in-law had fought with her and had returned to his house.

4. Thereafter, the first information repor