Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/822/2000 1/ 29 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 822 of 2000
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
LAXMINARAYAN
RAMSWARAOOP SHARMA - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KAMLESHWAR SINGH for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR IM PANDYA, APP for
Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 12-13/04/2006
ORAL
JUDGMENT
In
this appeal, the appellant-original accused has challenged the
legality of a judgement dated 31-07-2000 rendered by Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Ahmedabad while deciding Sessions Case
No. 111/1998.
In
the nutshell, the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that
the accused-appellant was married to one Girija, daughter of
Jagdishprasad Gorvarlal Sharma. The accused was serving in Railway
Police Force and was residing in the Railway Colony, Kokhra. It is
the case of the prosecution that accused had in the past made
demands from the father of his wife for buying a scooter for him
with a threat that if the demand is not met with, the accused may
marry again. Before the Trial Court, it was also the case of the
prosecution that the accused had illicit relations with another
lady. On account of mental and physical torture, wife of accused
committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself
ablaze on 10-08-1997 at 23:00 hours. She died on the spot. Her son
aged about three years Mohit also received serious burn injuries and
succumbed to such injuries later on in the hospital. The father of
the deceased Girija lodged complaint before the concerned police
station which was registered as I.Cr. No. 434/97. Upon conclusion
of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused
alleging offences punishable under sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of
Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and
the charge was framed against the accused on 13-07-1998 for offences
punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. In the
impugned judgement, the learned Judge acquitted the accused of the
offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code but
convicted him of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code. Accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a term of 3 years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
Since
the accused pleaded not guilty, the prosecution examined several
witnesses and produced documents to drive home the charge.
At
this stage, it would be necessary to take stock of the evidence on
record. For this purpose, I may briefly refer to depositions of all
the important witnesses.
Prosecution
Witness no.1- Surendrasing Pritamsing Panchan, exh.9, is a Panch
witness. He had been a witness to the panchnama of the scene of
incident. In his presence certain Muddamal articles such as plastic
container, a turquoise coloured saree, half burnt blouse, half burnt
sleeping mattress etc. were seized.
Prosecution
Witness No.2- Shri Manharsing Popatsing Vaghela, exh.15, is also a
Panch witness in whose presence certain ornaments and clothes from
body of the deceased lady were seized.
Prosecution
Witness no.3- Jagdishprasad Gorvarlal Sharma, the complainant,
father of the deceased lady is examined at exh. 21.
13-04-2006.
He has stated that his
daughter Girija was married to the accused in the year 1989. At the
time of marriage, he had given cash amounts in addition to ornaments
and other items according to the customs of his community. At the
time of marriage he had given Rs. 12,000/- in cash. He had also
given gold and silver ornaments and other items such as sofa-set,
sewing machine, fan and utensils etc. Thereafter his son-in-law got
a job in Railway Police Force. After getting service, his son-in-law
had demanded a Scooter for which he had written a letter to the
witness. He had produced before the Court two letters which were
exhibited. In response to the demand for the Scooter, he had stated
that the same will be given when he can raise funds. His son-in-law
stated that he may give it after one year. He stated that when his
daughter used to come to their house, she used to tell her mother
the kind of treatment his son-in-law was meting out to her. He
stated that his daughter had come to his house and stayed for about
20 to 25 days when Hariom (His brother-in-law) got a son. According
to him that was in the month of January. He however, could not
remember the year of that event. He stated that at that time his
daughter had not stated anything to him about the behaviour of his
son-in-law. In August, 1997 Pushpendra i.e. brother of his
son-in-law had come to his house and stated that his daughter and
son-in-law have met with an accident and are admitted in the
Hospital. Two or three days after this message, he received a
telegram in which it was stated that Girija has expired. He and his
wife thereafter, left Bhopal for Ahmedabad. Upon reaching Ahmedabad,
he found out that not only his daughter Girija, but her three year
old son Mohit had also expired. They expired due to burn injuries.
He there upon lodged a complaint before the Amraiwadi Police Station
against the son-in-law.
7.1 In his cross
examination, he stated that son-in-law used to write letters almost
every month. He however, immediately could not produce such letters.
He agreed that his daughter used to come to his house frequently and
he used to ask her about her well being.
Prosecution Witness no.4-
Shantidevi Jagdishprasad Sharma, exh.25, is the wife of complainant
and mother of deceased Girija. In her examination in chief before
the Court, She stated that her daughter Girija was married to the
accused in the year 1989. At the time of her marriage they had given
things as per the custom of their community. They had given
ornaments and other things willingly. Whenever her daughter used to
come at house of witness, she used to tell her that her husband
brings another girl home. She used to say that her husband harasses
her. When son was born to Hariom, Girija had come there. The witness
was not willing to send her to her in-laws house because she had
told the witness about the harassment. However, Girija told her to
please let her go other-wise she will be in trouble. Her
father-in-law had thereafter, taken her. After getting the job, her
son-in-law had demanded Scooter. According to the witness, Scooter
was actually given to him. The demand for Scooter was made through a
letter written by her son-in-law. From side of the in-laws of her
daughter Girija, her brother-in-law (husband’s younger brother) had
misinformed her that Girija and her husband are admitted in the
Hospital due to accident. They thereafter, received message through
telegram. She and her husband took a train and came to Ahmedabad.
She had not seen the face of her daughter. She had got very scared.
She does not know how her daughter died. She however, believed that
since her son-in-law was bringing girl due to the affair, her
daughter had died.
8.1 In her cross
examination, she denied the suggestion that her daughter stayed more
at her parents place than with her husband’s. She however, agreed
that she had never gone to the house of in-laws of her daughter
Girija. At this stage to a question put to the witness by the Court
as to whether her daughter had given any details of the girl that
her husband use to bring home, all that the witness stated was that
she was told that ?S(he) brings another girl and harasses me??.
She admitted that her daughter did not tell her that her husband
used to bring different girls. She stated that her daughter used to
tell her that he brings only one particular girl. She talked about
another girl being brought when she had come home at the time of
birth of son of Hariom. Thereafter, her daughter had never come to
their house. She denied the suggestion of the defence Counsel that
there were strained relations between the two sides since her
daughter was married to the accused by falsely suggesting that she
is literate.
Prosecution Witness no.5-
Dr. Chandrakant Darji is examined at exh.26. He was Medical Officer
serving at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. He had carried out postmortem
of deceased Girija. He found that the clothes worn by the deceased
had got burnt and had stuck to the body. From the body, from the
head and from the clothes, he could smell the stench of kerosene.
The entire body had turned black. She had received 100% burn
injuries. The upper part of the body had got charred. The hair had
also got completely burnt and from several parts of the body, skin
had come off. In his opinion, the death was on account of burn
injuries. He agreed to the suggestion that if large quantity of
kerosene is poured on a person and is then set on fire, such
injuries could be caused. The injuries found on the dead body could
have been as a result of burning through kerosene. There was no
cross examination of this witness.
Prosecution Witness No.6-
Dr. Jayandrabhai Ratilal Modi was examined at exh. 29. He was the
Doctor who had carried out postmortem of Mohit, young son of
deceased lady. He also found that there was 100% burn injuries on
his body which could have been caused if large quantity of kerosene
was poured on him. He opined that death was due to burn
injuries.
Prosecution Witness No.7-
Jigarbhai Hasmukhbhai Joshi was examined at exh. 32. He was resident
Doctor at L.G. Hospital at the relevant time. He had given
preliminary treatment to the accused for burn injuries that the
accused had received. He had produced the medical papers for the
treatment given to the accused and history given by him to the
Doctors treating the deceased.
11.1 In his cross
examination Doctor agreed that such injuries could have been caused
if a person tries to save someone in case of fire in the house. He
stated that in the history that the patient gave, it was stated that
he had received the burn injuries trying to save his son.
Prosecution Witness No.8-
Dhananjayasing Sundersing Vaghela, exh.34, was the P.S.I. Stationed
at Amraiwadi Police Station on 10-08-1997. In his deposition, he has
stated the steps taken by him upon receiving information that the
accused has been admitted in the L.G. Hospital with burn injuries.
Prosecution Witness No.9-
Somvirsing Shriramnathsing Thakur, exh.43 was the neighbour of the
accused. According to his testimony, he was residing in Unit
No.570/A of Railway Colony, Kokhra in August 1997 with his family.
He is police constable in RPF. He was occupying one or two rooms on
rental basis in the quarter belonging to one Musafir Prasad. On the
other side of the quarter Laxminarayan Sharma i.e. the accused was
residing. The doors connecting the two rooms used to remain locked.
Once in a while children used to open the door. On 10-08-1997, after
finishing his duties from 8 in the morning to 4 in the evening, he
had come back. On the date of incident, he was at home with his wife
and daughter. At about 12 O’ Clock at night when they were at home,
from the room of the accused they could hear loud shouts for help.
The accused was shouting. He had thereupon by inserting his hand,
opened the door between the two rooms whereupon he saw that there
was a big fire. The wife and son of Laxminarayan were burning. The
door inside the house of the accused was locked. The witness used
his force and removed the door. Thereafter, Fire Brigade had arrived
and everybody was shifted to L.G. Hospital.
13.1 In his cross
examination, he stated that before the Ambulance arrived, accused
and his son were sent to the hospital in autorickshaw. The wife of
the accused was sent in police ambulance because she had got
severely burnt. When the police van took her away, he saw that she
had died.
Prosecution Witness no. 10-
Bharatsing Dhirubha Jhala, exh.44 was the Senior Police Inspector of
Amraiwadi Police Station who had carried out the investigation and
recorded the statement of the witnesses. In his examination in chief
he has described the investigation that he carried out. He stated
that on the scene of offence, he had drawn a Panchnama. They had
found a half burnt saree and mattress covers. All the articles were
smelling of kerosene. There was a black coloured plastic container
in which also some liquid smelling like kerosene was there. He had
collected all these items and sealed them.
14.1 In his cross
examination he agreed that in the statements before the police given
by Somvirsing and Nirmalaben, it was stated that while trying to
save his wife and son, accused had received burn injuries.
Prosecution Witness No.11-
Jashwantsing Kacharaji Chavla, exh.46, was the Assistant Police
Commissioner under whom Amraiwadi Police Station was situated. He
had taken over the investigation from Police Inspector Shri Jhala
after initial investigation was carried out by Shri Jhala. He has
given details of steps taken by him.
In addition to the oral and
documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also
recorded the statement of the accused under section 313 of Criminal
Procedure Code. Nothing of note appears to be coming out except the
denials on the part of the accused. He however stated that on the
date of incident, he had done the night duty. He had gone to sleep
at about 8 to 9 O’ Clock. When his eyes opened he found that there
was raging fire. They had locked the doors with the help of locks
and he could not find the key. He had shouted and had tried to save
his son. He had also received burn injuries.
Of the documentary
evidence, there are two letters written by the accused exh.22 and 23
which need to be perused. In his letters written to the
father-in-law, the accused asked for a Scooter suggesting that
earlier he had agreed to pay for getting a job. Now that he had got
the job without such payments, such amount can be used for buying
Scooter. He also made a grievance about his wife being illiterate
and such fact being concealed from him at the time of his marriage.
On the basis of above oral
and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to
record the conviction of the accused under section 498-A of Indian
Penal Code. However, the learned Sessions Judge found that charge
under section 306 of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The
learned Judge was therefore, pleased to award a sentence of
imprisonment for three years with a direction for payment of fine of
Rs. 5,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
months in case of default for payment of fine.
The learned advocate Shri
Kamleshwar Sing appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that
charge against the appellant was wrongly held to have been proved.
He submitted that there was insufficient evidence to drive home the
charge. He further submitted that there was absolutely no evidence
on record to suggest that the appellant had caused any physical or
mental harassment to the deceased.
19.1 It was further
submitted that there was no demand of any money or valuable item
made by the appellant from the parents of his wife. He submitted
that the contents of the letters exh. 22 and 23 would suggest that
there was only a request and suggestion for buying a Scooter for
son-in-law and there was neither a stern demand nor any threat if
such demand is not met with. In any case, he submitted that said
incident took place in the year 1990 as the date of letters would
suggest. The wife of the accused died in August 1997. He submitted
that after such a long passage of time, it is not possible to
correlate the two events.
19.2 It was also submitted
that the appellant had not caused any injuries nor had he been
responsible for burn injuries received by his wife. She died in a
pure accident in which accident, his son also received fatal burn
injuries. He submitted that it was a case of accidental fire. He
tried to douse the fire and received serious burn injuries. It was
further submitted that in any event there is no evidence whatsoever
to connect any action of the accused with the death of his wife even
if it is found to be not accidental. He submitted that even if the
prosecution succeeds in establishing that wife of the
accused-appellant died on account of suicide, there is no evidence
on record to suggest that the same was committed due to treatment
meted out to her by the accused-appellant.
Reliance was placed on the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girdhar
Shankar Tawade Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2002 SC
2078 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that acquittal of a
charge under section 306, though not by itself a ground for
acquittal under Section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required
to bring home the charge of section 498-A as well, without which the
charge cannot be said to be maintained. In the said decision
however, there was a specific finding of the trial Court and the
High Court that the death unfortunately was an accidental death and
not suicide. It was therefore found that since it was a case of
accident and was not suicide, explanation (a) to section 498-A would
have no application.
20.1 Reliance was placed on
the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Besai
Venkata Ramana Murthy v. State reported in 2003 CRI.L.J. 4708.
The said decision is however, rendered in peculiar facts of the
said case and I do not find any proposition of law laid down therein
which would apply in the present case.
20.2 Reliance was also
placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others reported in
(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 281, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while repelling the challenge to the Constitutional validity of the
provisions contained in section 498-A of Indian Penal Code observed
that many instances have come to light where the complaints are not
bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. It was observed
that there is no scope for any preconceived notion or view and it
was observed that it should be the role of the investigating
agencies to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on
account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations.
20.3 Reliance was also
placed on the decision of Learned Single Judge of this Court in case
of Indrasing M. Raol v. State of Gujarat reported in 1999(3)
GLR 2536, wherein the learned Judge observed that solitary incident
of cruelty cannot be the basis for conviction under section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code.
On the other hand learned
APP Shri I.M.Pandya for the State supported the decision of the
Trial Court. He submitted that indisputably, the cause of death of
the wife of the accused was on account of burn injuries. He
submitted that there is no scope to argue that death was an
accidental death. He submitted that deceased died on account of
suicide committed by her.
21.1 From the evidence on
record, it was submitted by the learned APP that there was history
of the accused demanding dowry from the in-laws. He had written
letters to his father-in-law demanding a Scooter. He was also
unhappy with his wife for being illiterate and that this was not
revealed to him before the marriage.
21.2 He also submitted
that there was evidence of another lady with whom the accused was
friendly. The deceased had complained about his behaviour to her
mother. She used to complain to the mother when she used to visit
her parents’ house. The mother has clearly stated in her deposition
that her daughter complained that the accused person brings home
another lady and harasses her.
In short it is the
contention of the learned APP that there is sufficient evidence on
record of cruelty and harassment meted out by the accused to the
deceased. In addition thereto when it is found that the deceased had
committed suicide on account of such harassment in view of the
explanation (a) of section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, the
conclusions of the trial Court need not be disturbed.
Having heard the learned
advocates appearing for the parties and having perused the evidence
on record at length, following aspects emerge straightway.
That the wife of the
accused, Girija and his son Mohit died due to burn injuries received
by them on the fateful night of 10-08-1997.
There was ample evidence on
record to suggest that kerosene in large quantities was poured on
the deceased. This is clearly been established by the prosecution
through evidence. The Doctors who had carried out postmortem of
deceased Girija as well as her son Mohit have clearly stated that
they could smell kerosene from the bodies and clothes. The Doctors
agreed to the suggestion put to them that excessive burn injuries
received by the deceased could have been caused if large quantities
of kerosene would have been poured on them and, thereafter, set on
fire. Investigating Agency found kerosene smell from articles seized
from the scene of incident. One Plastic Container also carried
liquid smelling like kerosene.
Possibility of accidental
death is completely ruled out. There is no iota of evidence to
suggest that deceased received injuries on account of any
unfortunate accident. Not even a suggestion has been put forth by
the defence in the cross examination that deceased Girija was either
cooking or carrying out such other activity on the stove and
accidentally received burn injuries. There is no evidence of a stove
having burst at the scene of incident. On the contrary, there is
ample evidence to suggest that kerosene was actually poured over the
bodies and clothes of Girija as well as her son Mohit.
It can therefore, be safely
concluded that deceased Girija died not on account of accident but
she committed suicide.
The question however, is
what was the reason which drove her to take such an extreme step.
Was the behaviour of her husband and treatment that he meted out to
her responsible for such a gruesome end of the deceased lady.
Undoubtedly, when she decided to take her life and possibly life of
her own young child there has to be strong reasons to drive her to
take such an extreme step. The short question is whether there is
sufficient evidence on record to connect the accused and the
behaviour and treatment of the deceased by him with the final
unfortunate decision of the deceased lady.
It is true that there are
two letters said to have been written by the accused to his
father-in-law which are at exh, 22 and 23 in which he asked for
being given a Scooter. He also conveyed his displeasure about the
manner in which his father-in-law had married off his daughter with
the accused by misrepresenting that she was literate. However,
reading the letters as a whole, it is not possible to conclude that
there were dowry demands made by the accused from his father-in-law.
He did request that a Scooter be bought for him and did grumble when
father-in-law stated that same would be supplied when he can raise
funds. However, I see no suggestion in the letters that for not
fulfilling the demand, there would by any harassment, physical or
mental that would be caused to the deceased. This coupled with
passage of time between the writing of the letters and the
unfortunate suicide committed by the wife of the accused, I am
unable to see any direct correlation between the two. The letters
were written way back in the year 1990. Unfortunate incident took
place on 10-08-1997. Seven long years had passed since writing of
the letters. I therefore, cannot find that there was any direct
connection between the two events.
This brings me to the
question of harassment by the accused of the deceased on account of
third person entering their life.
In his complaint, the
complainant has stated before the police that when his daughter had
stayed with him for about 20 days on the occasion of birth of son of
Hariom, she had told him that her husband has love affair with
another girl and brings her home despite her resistance. In fact,
the complainant stated that his daughter conveyed to him that she
was told by her husband to leave the house if she so desired. But he
will not discontinue bringing the girl home. Though these statements
were made by the complainant in the complaint, this aspect is not to
be found in his deposition before the Court. In fact in his evidence
before the Court, this witness i.e. P.W.3-Jagdishprasad, exh.21,
does not refer to the above statements made by him in the complaint
at all. Though he did say that his daughter used to communicate with
his wife about the treatment given to her by son-in-law, he clearly
stated that during her last visit on the occasion of birth of son of
Shri Harion, she had not stated anything about the behaviour of his
son-in-law. The statements made in the complaint obviously cannot be
relied upon and substantive evidence is the one given by the witness
before the Court. In the present case, therefore, fact remains that
complainant in his deposition before the Court at exh.21 has not
narrated anything about the alleged affair of his son-in-law and the
harassment that he used to cause to his daughter due to the same.
There is of-course the
testimony of the mother of the deceased. In her deposition, P.W.4-
Shantidevi, exh.25, she has stated that her daughter whenever she
used to come home used to tell her that her husband brings another
girl to their house and that the husband is harassing her. When
Girija had visited the witness at the time of delivery of son of
Shri Hariom, the witness was reluctant to send her back to her
husband’s place. To a specific question put by the Court about the
details of the lady that the accused used to bring, the witness
stated that she was told that he brings another girl and harasses.
It can thus be seen that in
her deposition the mother of the deceased, P.W.4, has given some
general indications about the involvement of a third person as told
to her by her daughter. She has however, not given any details of
the concerned person. She has not given any further details of any
affair if there was one between the accused and the anonymous
person. She has not given any account of any of the instances when,
as told to her by her daughter, such person was brought to home, the
nature of quarrel that the husband and wife were having on account
of such instances. She has above all not given any details of any of
the minor or major quarrels between the husband and wife on account
of any love affair that the accused might have outside his marriage.
Other than the rather
general indications given by the witness P.W.4-Shantidevi about
another girl, there is not even an iota of evidence on record. No
other witness has even fleetingly referred to the same in the
deposition before the Court. As narrated above, the complainant,
P.W.3, father of the deceased Girija has not made these averments in
his deposition before the Court. If there was another lady in the
life of the accused and if the presence of this person was causing
serious friction between the couple, there would certainly be some
corroborative evidence in some form or the other. If eventually as
is sought to be suggested by the prosecution, such an affair of the
husband of the deceased and ensuing quarrels between them and
harassment caused to the deceased by the husband was the main reason
why she took the extreme step of putting an end to her life, surely
there would by some evidence of some witness testifying the presence
of a third person. In this regard witness P.W.9- Somvirsing Thakur
is most crucial. He was residing in the same quarter No. 570-A of
Railway Colony, Kokhra at the time of incident, in which the accused
also with his family was residing. Each family i.e. family of the
accused as well as family of P.W. 9 was occupying one room of the
two room quarter. There was a common wall and a door separating the
two rooms. As a very next door neighbour, he was the one who rushed
first upon hearing shouts of help at midnight of 10-08-1997. He
would be an ideal person to throw some light on visit of another
lady and the quarrels that the same might have occasioned between
the husband and wife on account of the same. If there were quarrels,
if there was friction between the husband and wife and if harassment
of husband to the wife on account of his affair outside the marriage
was so grave as to lead the deceased to put an end to her life and
also to put an end to the life of her own son, surely P.W.9 who was
occupying room adjacent to the room occupied by the accused with his
family would have come to know of at-least part of the problem.
Strangely, the prosecution has not put a single question to the
witness on this aspect. This witness in his deposition before the
Court at exh.43 has not thrown any light on what drove the deceased
to take such an extreme step.
The conclusion of the above
appreciation of evidence would be that barring some general
statements made by the mother of the deceased P.W.4, there is no
iota of evidence to suggest any love affair of the accused with some
lady. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that he used to
bring her home which used to cause friction between the husband and
wife or that he used to harass his wife for objecting to his affair.
There is not a slightest evidence to corroborate the statement made
by the P.W.4 in her deposition. It is not to suggest that deposition
of a witness if other-wise found believable, truthful and reliable
cannot be accepted without further corroboration. If the deposition
is clear, is found to be reliable and if witness is found to be
truthful, the Court can certainly depend upon the same without
looking for further corroboration. In this case however, I find that
P.W.4- Shantidevi has not given any details about the so called love
affair of her son-in-law i.e. the accused-appellant. Barring some
general statements suggesting that her daughter informed her that
her husband brings home another lady and harasses her because she
objects to it, P.W.4- Shantidevi has not given any details. There
is no description, name or details of the so called lady whom the
accused used to bring home. There are no details of any of the
instances where he might have brought some girl causing anguish or
agony to the deceased. No details regarding any friction or quarrel
between the husband and wife have been given. In view of such patchy
and severely scanty evidence, in isolation, without any further
corroboration whatsoever, it would be extremely unsafe to base the
conviction of the accused. Human mind is a complex organism. Some
are super sensitive while some are not. What drove the deceased to
take such an extreme step and so gruesomely take her own life and
perhaps life of her own child will perhaps remain a mystery for
ever. There may be several reasons why a person out of sheer despair
may decide to take the ultimate extreme step of taking ones own
life. Automatically, however it is not possible to connect the
husband of the deceased with her violent end, without there being
some evidence on record. However, much temptation there may be for
finding a scapegoat to form a legal conviction, there must be
evidence on record. The missing link between the accused and the
ultimate action of the deceased cannot be bridged by surmises and
conjectures. For lack of supporting evidence on record, the accused
must get the benefit of doubt.
In the result, I find that
the judgement of conviction against the appellant u/s. 498-A of
Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The
appeal is allowed. Judgement and order dated 31-07-2000 passed by
Addl. Sessions Judge ? Court No.13, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case
No.111 of 1998 is set aside. Bail bond stands cancelled.
(Akil Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top