IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 796 of 1997 ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus PATIL CHINDHA SHANKAR & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MS VRINDA SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR JK PARMAR(587) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI Date : 26/09/2025 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI)

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 34 of 1993, whereby the respondent – accused were acquitted of the charge under Sections 498(A) read with Section 34 of the IPC, alternatively under Section 498(A) read with Section 114 of the IPC; Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC, alternatively Section 306 read with Section 114; and Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of the IPC, alternatively Section 304(B) read with Section 114 of the IPC.

2. The complaint, lodged by the victim Mangalaben Pandit wife of Chandrakant Chindha Patil, i.e., respondent – accused no. 3, was produced on record at Exh-43. In her complaint she had stated that, she had been married to respondent – accused no. 2 two and a half years prior to the incident. She was residing in a joint family with her husband and in-laws. She had alleged that, she was being harassed by her husband and in-laws regarding insufficient dowry and, they were physically and mentally harassing her on that count and were, pressurizing her to bring Rs. 30,000/- from her father. Despite such treatment being meted out to her, she continued to bear their harassment and reside with her husband. She had further stated that, ten months before the incident she had come to her father’s house, but thereafter, none from her matrimonial home had come to fetch her. Four to five days before the incident, she had received a letter from her husband demanding Rs. 30,000/- from her father. Unable to bear such harassment, she had poured kerosene on herself at around 3:30 p.m. on 26.12.1991, and had destroyed the letter she had received from her husband.

3. The investigation commenced following the registration of the FIR, and her dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate which came to be, placed on record at Exh-31. The Investigating Officer thereafter prepared the relevant panchnamas in the presence of two respective panch witnesses, and also recorded statements of witnesses conversant with the incident. Finding sufficient culpable evidence against all the respondent – accused, the IO had filed the charge-sheet before the concerned Court. The offenses being triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, framed charges against the respondent-accused. They pleaded not guilty and were put to trial. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the respondent – accused, examined - witnesses and submitted - documents in support of the evidence. Upon completion of this oral evidence, the statements of the respondent – accused under Section 313 of the CrPC were recorded. Subsequently, the learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the submissions of the learned advocates from both sides and was pleased to acquit the respondent – accused of the offenses, with which they were charged.

4. We have heard learned APP Ms. Vrinda Shah on behalf of the Complainant – State, who has led us through the entire gamut of evidence presented by the prosecution before the competent Court in Sessions Case No. 34 of 1993. None was present on behalf of the respondent – accused.

5. At the outset, on perusing the complaint lodged by the victim which is on record as Exh-43, it mentions that the victim – Mangalaben who ultimately succumbed to her burns, was physically and mentally harassed in her m