IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1192 of 2006 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

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

KAMLESH NATHABHAI JADAV & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR PIYUSH B TRIVEDI(12401) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 03/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is by the mother-in-law and brother- in-law of deceased, who came to be convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C. for short) by the judgment and order dated 01.07.2006 passed by the Additional District And Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.14 of 2006, whereby they were ordered to serve sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in failure of payment of fine further three months simple imprisonment. No separate sentence was passed under Section 114 of I.P.C., while the benefit of set off was granted under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

1.1 The conviction which followed for the present appellants was under Section 498A of I.P.C., while they were acquitted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., since the learned Trial Court Judge had not found any case to abetment for the commission of suicide.

2. The trial was against three accused under sections 498A, 306 and 114 of I.P.C. Accused No.1 being the husband of deceased was convicted for the offence under sections 498A and 307 of the I.P.C. Challenging the judgment he had filed Criminal Appeal No.1304 of 2006. This Court by an order dated 05.08.2025, observed the jail remarks produced by learned APP and considered the fact that accused No.1 as appellant had already served the sentence. The jail remarks recorded that he had served sentence of five years one month and fourteen days and on 01.08.2011, he had been released from jail, thus, the appeal stood disposed of on that ground.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Piyush B.Trivedi for the appellants submitted that the matrimonial life of deceased Jyotsnaben with accused No.1 was of five years and out of the wedlock they had two children. The elder son was aged about three years and a girl child, who died along with mother was almost about seven months.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi submitted that the complaint was filed under legal advice after meeting the Advocate. The marriage had taken place in community group marriage, thus, Advocate Mr. Trivedi stated that there would not be any case of demand of dowry since the marriage would be under the direction of the community leaders and the community decides the gifts and articles to be given to bride and groom during the marriage.

3.2 Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate submitted that the allegation of demanding gold bangles (patla) in baby shower (Shrimant) and the allegation of the brother-in-law harassing deceased on the pretext of not cooking well and instigating the husband, and the husband beating the wife do not fall in line considering five years matrimonial life, where according to the father in the first year of marriage, there was no such dispute and the allegation is of not bringing sufficient gifts after the first baby shower (Shrimant).

3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi stated that the father himself stated that he had given certain gift articles after the first Shrimant. There was no such dispute when another child Jalpa was born. The details in the complaint does not get corroborated by the evidence of the witnesses. Advocate Mr. Trivedi submitted that in the complaint the father had also recorded that there were some sort of settlement talks by intervention of some relatives Babubhai Dungerbhai and Umedbhai Somabhai and others, who all are not examined in the matter, which in