{"id":226850,"date":"2011-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011"},"modified":"2018-03-17T07:05:41","modified_gmt":"2018-03-17T01:35:41","slug":"kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Kantilal vs The on 8 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Kantilal vs The on 8 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: C.K.Buch,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/294\/1994\t 36\/ 36\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 294 of 1994\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH\n \n \n======================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n======================================\n \n\nKANTILAL\nMARTAJI PANDOR - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n====================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR KB ANANDJIWALA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR PD BHATE APP for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n======================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 03\/09\/2007 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\t\tThe
\nPresent appeal under Section 374 read with Section 386 of Criminal
\nProcedure Code. The appellant ?  Original accused No.1 of Sessions
\nCase No.59 of 1992 tried and decided by the learned Additional
\nSessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, has challenged the
\nlegality and validity of the conviction and sentence dated 10.2.1994.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tOne
\nco-accused – Laxmiben Kantinal, according to the prosecution, as the
\nfirst wife of the present appellant. Learned trial Judge acquitted
\nthe co-accused – Laxmiben.  So, the State had preferred appeal
\nagainst order of acquittal being Criminal Appeal No.381 of 1994, but
\nthis Court refused to grant leave to appeal and the appeal thus has
\nbeen dismissed against that accused by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe
\nlearned trial Judge has imposed S.I. of one year to the appellant ?
\naccused for the offence punishable under Section 498 (A)  and of two
\nyear for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal
\nCode. The amount of fine imposed is Rs.100\/- for each offence. The
\nquantum of punishment imposed by the learned trial Judge being too
\nlenient and inadequate, the State had therefore, challenged the order
\nof the punishment on its adequacy and prayed for enhancement for the
\nperiod of imprisonment by way of appeal under Section 377 of the
\nCriminal Procedure Code. The appeal under Section 377 was registered
\nas Criminal Appeal No.380 of 1994. The Court is informed by the
\nlearned advocate appearing for the appellant that this Court has
\ndismissed the said appeal preferred by the State. In the order under
\nchallenge, it is ordered that both the sentences imposed shall run
\nconcurrently by the trial Court. In-default punishment imposed
\nperiod-wise, for both the offences.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Anandjiwala, learned advocate has taken me through the basic case of
\nthe prosecution and the evidence led during the course of trial is an
\nunnatural death and she has committed suicide. According to Mr.
\nAnandjiwala, the defence of the case so far as the charge of offence
\npunishable under Section 306 is concerned, the first set of
\nsubmission of Mr. Anandjiwal is that the death may not be because of
\nsuicide committed by the deceased Amariben and it may be an
\naccidental death, as such there was no serious reason for her to
\ncommit suicide.  She had delivered a child in recent past and the
\nchild was about two months. Ultimately, the deceased was self
\nsufficient serving as a teacher and competent to pull on the
\nphysically and financially the rest part of the life even with the
\nchild. So, it appears to be an accident and the learned trial Judge
\nought to have held that the prosecution has not satisfactorily proved
\nthe suicidal act of the deceased Amriben. Second set i.e. alternative
\nsubmission of Mr. Anandjiwala is that considering the evidence as it
\nis led by the prosecution, there is no iota of evidence under which
\nit is possible to conclude and even infer reasonably that the accused
\nhas abated alleged in the alleged act of suicide committed by the
\ndeceased Amriben. The document Exhibit 10 relied on by the
\nprosecution and accepted by the learned trial Judge is genuinely
\nproved document. The inference of abatement ought not to have been
\nthrown. On the contrary, the allegation made in document exhibit 10
\nis that the deceased was apprehended that she may be killed, it is
\nneither case nor charged against the accused that the deceased was
\nkilled and she was thrown into the well from which her dead body was
\nfound. She was physically fit and it can be inferred reasonably that
\non account of some quarrel, a lady like Amriben, who was serving as a
\nteacher would commit suicide. The prosecution, as per the settled
\nlegal position, was under the obligation to establish by leading
\nconvincing evidence and placing circumstantial evidence on record
\nwith certain act or omission of the accused, had led her to commit
\nsuicide and it was also required to be proved that such conduct of
\nthe accused had nexus with the act of committing suicide.\n<\/p>\n
5.
\n\tThe Courts have hammered in number of decisions that the prosecution
\nshould establish satisfactorily that there must be a nexus between
\nthe act and omission of the accused in the act of suicide otherwise,
\nit would be risky to infer mens ria. In some decisions, the Courts
\nhave considered the proximity of time between the act or omission of
\nthe accused, charge and actual act of suicide.  The time of
\ncommission of the offence is also appears to be a time selected by
\nthe deceased herself. The accused may be in deep sleep and could not
\nhave thought that the deceased would commit suicide during the night
\nhours.. So, the learned trial Judge ought to have given benefit of
\ndoubt to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Anandjiwala has drawn my attention to one decision in the case of
\nState of Gujarat Vs. Bharatbhai Babulal Lad and others.
\nreported  in (2006) GLH 718. In this decision, the Division
\nBench of this Court after considering the number of decisions of
\nHon’ble Supreme Court, dismissed the acquittal appeal preferred by
\nthe State and upheld the acquittal of the accused, who was charged
\nfor the offence under Section 306.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tIt
\nis submitted by Mr. Anandjiwala that the documents Exhibit 10 relied
\non by the learned trial Judge is most vulnerable document and is  a
\nvery weak piece of evidence. The learned trial Judge has not
\nconsidered the answers given by the hand-writing expert during the
\ncourse of trial. Considering the language of the letter and mainly
\nthe title of the letter Exhibit 10, it becomes doubtful that this
\nletter was written prior to the act of suicide. The letter, if the
\nsame is read as whole, gives an impression that it must have been
\nconcocted with a view to implicate the accused and his legally wedded
\nwife into a serious offence. The learned trial Judge ought to have
\nobserved that the document Exhibit 10 is not a reliable piece of
\nevidence as hand-writing in document Exhibit 10 are materially
\ndifferent. Different witnesses examined, have stated on oath that the
\nhand-writing in document Exhibit 10 are not hand-writing of the
\ndeceased  Amariben, then the learned trial Judge ought not to have
\nbelieved the evidence of Principal of School and one another
\nco-teacher serving with deceased Amariben examined by the
\nprosecution. If the document Exhibit 10 is found not reliable, then
\nthe accused deserves acquittal from both these offences for which, he
\nwas charged. It is also submitted that if the document Exhibit 10 is
\nbelieved to be genuine and hand-writing of the deceased, then the
\nappellant ?  accused ought not to have been linked with the offence
\npunishable under Section 498 (A) because the prosecution has to prove
\nthat the accused was the husband of the deceased and to prove that
\naspect, the prosecution was supposed to lead evidence to show that
\nthe deceased Amariben was legally wedded wife to the accused. The
\nexplanation given by the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. while
\nexplanation incriminating in evidence appears probably. Ultimately,
\nthe appellant ?  accused and the deceased belonged to the Schedule
\nTribe and it is say of the accused that the deceased being educated
\nand literal lady, was attracted to the accused, therefore, both of
\nthem were residing in the house as friends. Merely because the
\naccused has accepted that the deceased conceived a child, when they
\nwere staying together in a house and he had accompanied her even in
\nthe hospital when she was to deliver a child would not confer the
\nstatus of the husband within meaning of Section 498 (A) of Indian
\nPenal Code.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tIn
\nsupport of his arguments, Mr. Anandjiwal has placed reliance on one
\njudgment in the case of Ramnarayan and others Vs. State of M.P.,
\n1998 (3) Crime 147. The Madhaya Pradesh High Court was dealing
\nwith the legality and validity of the charge framed by the learned
\ntrial Judge and it was submitted that the accused could have been
\nprosecuted with the offfence punishable under Section 498 (A) as the
\ndeceased was not a legally married woman to the accused. According to
\nthe fact of the cited decision, the deceased was second wife of the
\napplicant ?  accused No.2 and his first wife was alive. The deceased
\nsecond wife had committed suicide by consuming poison and the
\napplicant ?  accused was charged for the offence punishable under
\nSection 304B and 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code. According to
\nMr.Anandjiwala, the learned Judge of Madhaya Pradesh High Court has
\nconsidered two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court : One is case
\nof Bhaurao AIR 1965 SC 1564 and another in the case of Yamunabai AIR
\n1998 SC 644. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the applicant ?
\naccused cannot be said to be a husband of the deceased within meaning
\nof Section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code. The ratio laid down in this
\ndecision possible would help the accused.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tLearned
\nA.P.P. Mr. P.D. Bhate has placed his resistance to the submission
\nmade by Mr. Anandjiwala and according to Mr. Bhate, if the document
\nExhibit 10 is believed to be genuine document and is valid piece of
\nevidence, then the finding of the guilt recorded by th learned trial
\nJudge should be upheld. The learned trial Judge has assigned sound
\nreasons from para 14 onwards of the judgment and it is not necessary
\nfor this Court to assign independent reason for confirming this
\njudgment by adopting assigned reasons by the learned trial Judge.
\nThis Court should dismiss the appeal. There is no scope to believe
\nthat the death of the deceased may be an accidental death. There was
\nno reason for the deceased to go to well at odd hours and that too
\nwithout informing her husband or the appellant ?  accused, who was
\nvery well present in the house, especially when a sucking child was
\nvery well in the house. The scene of offence – Panchnama on the
\ncontrary creates an impression that the deceased must have jumped
\ninto the well with the determination under an emotional over
\ndepressed state of mind.  According to Mr. Bhate, the appellant ?
\naccused is a person responsible for the state of the mind of
\ndeceased, because this was only person, who was present in the house,
\notherwise the deceased had no reason to commit suicide, especially
\nwhen she was self sufficient being a Govt. servant. If she was afraid
\nabout her relation with the appellant accused, she was not conceived
\na child  and\/or delivered the child. The deceased must be determined
\nlady and therefore, only she started residing with the appellant –
\naccused. In such a situation, the death on account of the accident,
\nit does not look probable and acceptable and with this background, if
\nExhibit 10 is read, it is clear that only harassment and torture of
\nthe accused had led her to the act of suicide. Alternative submission
\nmade by Mr. Bhate is that if the Court is of the view that there is
\nno sufficient evidence to link the accused with the offence
\npunishable under Section 306, then at least this Court should uphold
\nand confirm the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge for
\nthe offence punishable under Section 498 (A). According to Mr. Bhate,
\nto prove the relationship between the accused and deceased as husband
\nand wife, the learned trial Judge was supposed to consider the
\nconduct of the parties and their day-to-day behaviour. Undisputedly,
\nboth were the Govt. servants serving as teachers. The mother of the
\ndeceased, who had been examined by the prosecution has proved that
\nunder which circumstances the deceased decided to stay with the
\naccused. She has stated on oath that her daughter had married with
\nthe accused, but as per the caste customs, the accused was supposed
\nto call the parents of the girl i.e. herself and her husband etc.
\nbut, till Amriben committed suicide. She has also stated that the
\ndeceased Amriben was not treated well by the accused. It is in her
\nevidence that she had visited even the resident of the deceased, so
\nthat it is 0clear from the evidence that the deceased and the present
\nappellant ?  accused were living a life with harmony at least during
\nthe day when she committed suicide.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tAfter
\ninvestigation, the present appellant – accused as well as his first
\nwife Laxmiben were chargesheeted and it is allegation that because of
\nthe conduct and behaviour of both these accused and mainly the
\naccused No.1 was the cause of the commission of the suicide in recent
\npast date of the incident, it is clear that the deceased was
\nill-treated.  In the letter Exhibit 10 received in evidence and the
\ncontents thereof have been considered by the learned trial Judge and
\naccording to Mr. Bhate, learned A.P.P., this document is sufficient
\nto prove the mental cruelty to its extreme. This letter proves that
\nsome civil marriage  ceremony performed between the accused and the
\ndeceased at Himatnagar on 21.8.1990 and thereafter, she was led to
\nfinancial exploitation. She was threatened to dire consequences of
\ndeath. It is true that the letter Exhibit 10 itself is not a dying
\ndeclaration as the deceased had expressed apprehension that she may
\nbe perhaps killed. The title of the letter is sufficient to infer
\nthat the deceased was apprehending a death either at the hands of the
\naccused persons or at their instance. It is not the say of the
\nprosecution that the deceased was killed or was pushed into a well
\nforcibly against her wish, but the police was under obligation to
\ninvestigate that why this educated economically self sufficient lady
\nhaving infant child  has committed suicide and this letter Exhibit 10
\nhas resolved all these questions those were cropped up in the mind of
\npersons, who had knowing the deceased, relatives of the deceased and
\nthe machinery under legal obligation to trace the truth. The mother
\nof the deceased has substantially supported the case of the
\nprosecution, but for the want of other social tie, it was not
\npossible for her to unfold the details of the conduct of the accused
\ntowards the deceased. The evidence therefore, has been led before the
\nlearned trial Judge as it is and the version of the mother of the
\ndeceased examined, corroborates the contents of the letter received
\nby the police. Initially, the incident was recorded as a accidental
\ndeath and one of the arguments of Mr. Anandjiwala is that the
\ndeceased may have died accidentally and the death may not be suicidal
\ndeath, but the say of Mr. Bhate, learned A.P.P. is that there was no
\nreason for the deceased to go to a well at odd hours after midnight
\nand during very early hours of the day leaving the accused with
\ninfant child behind. The well was not at that distance from the
\nresidence. chapples were found near the well. As per the say of the
\nprosecution, on 26.3.1992, the accused No.2 Laxmiben and accused
\nNo.1- present appellant were also there in the house. The application
\n dated 26.3.1992 was received by the police in envelope and for the
\napplication, the entry was made in the register of the police
\nstation. That entry No.64 of 1992 has been proved by P.W.10, P.S.I.
\nMr. R.A. Patel. The application was handed over to the Head-constable
\nMr. Pashabhai and it is say of the P.W.10 that this application must
\nhave been written before about a day or two. The application was
\nreceived by the police on 26.3.1992. Thereafter, on 27.3.1992, the
\npolice was intimated by the appellants – accused about the incident.
\nSo, to resolve confusion, the police had ample exercise to find out
\nwhether application Exhibit 10 is the application genuinely written
\nby the deceased Amariben, so this letter was sent to hand-writings
\nexpert and his finding is that the letter in question, a document
\nExhibit 10 was written by the person, who is author of undisputed
\nwritings, meaning thereby, the deceased Amariben. Undisputedly, the
\nsaid  handwritings have been recovered from the custody of the
\ngenuine person and school records etc. and the handwritings of
\ndeceased Amariben is undisputed document as well as handwritings of
\nExhibit 10 have been proved by the independent witnesses including
\nP.W.1 – Timothibhai Daudbhai Damor Exhibit 9. He was Principal
\nteacher of the school of village Bhetali and the deceased was serving
\nin the school since last about 5 years. He was knowing the appellant
\naccused also as a teacher serving in Primary school of Jesingpur and
\nthe distance of Jesingpur and Bhetali village is also come on record,
\nthat of 2 Kms. only. According to this witness, the primary school of
\nJesingpur is in the groups school of village Bhetali. This witness
\nhas proved the relation between the deceased and the appellant No.1
\naccused. He has also proved handwritings of the deceased Amariben
\nincluding documents from the School Credit Society. He has stated on
\noath that he knows the signature of the deceased Amariben. The
\nMuddamal, article No.8 is the daily note, which requires to be
\nmaintained by the teacher and that note was of the deceased Amariben.
\nAfter proving handwritings of Muddamal, article No.8, a note has been
\nreceived vide Exhibit 11. So, it was possible for the court even
\nunder Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to give look and compare
\nthe handwritings of Exhibit 10 and other undisputed documents written
\nby the deceased Amriben. In that situation, the evidence of experts
\ncan be said to be an important opinion evidence, which corroborates
\nto the case of the prosecution and the version of P.W.1, the document
\nExhibit 1 is a genuine document written by the deceased Amariben
\nprior to hours through which she has complained about cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tAccording
\nto Mr. Bhate, learned A.P.P., the findings recorded by the learned
\ntrial Judge may be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tPresent
\nAppeal is under Section 374 read with 386 of Criminal Procedure Code
\nand therefore, the Court is supposed to evaluate the entire set of
\nevidence while upholding the ultimate findings. Considering the
\nsettled legal position, if the evidence led by the prosecution is
\nevaluated then it is difficult for this court to accept that the
\nprosecution has successfully brought the charge of offence punishable
\nunder Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. The deceased was well
\neducated lady and financially self sufficient. She was bold enough to
\ngive birth to a child because of her relation with appellant No.1 –
\naccused. Ultimately, the deceased was a member of Schedule Tribe and
\ncaste customs does not prevent such relation. The relation between
\nthe deceased and the accused were old. It emerges from the document
\nExhibit 10 that before entering into co-habitation with the accused,
\nsome formalities have been performed at Himatnagar, which is referred
\nto as “Civil Marriage”.  The police could have investigated
\nand collected the documents to substantiate statement in this regard
\nin document Exhibit 10, but non production of any documentary
\nevidence in this regard, would not go against the prosecution because
\nthe Principal teacher of the School, the mother of the deceased and
\nother witnesses have proved that the deceased Amariben may be the
\nsecond wife of the appellant – accused. There is no evidence on
\nrecord to show that what time prior to the commission of suicide, she
\nwas ill-treated or insulted. The entry of accused No.2 in the house
\non the date of the incident or some days prior thereto, may have
\nenvied her. But it is also in evidence that the deceased was aware
\nthat the appellant – accused is a married man and she had decided to
\nbe a second wife of the accused against the will and wish of her
\nparents and they have also accepted that relation and there were
\nwitnesses by socially compromise to be accepted the appellant accused
\nas officially their son-in-law.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tThe
\nmother examined by the prosecution, P.W. 3 has simply stated that she
\nwas even aware about the delivery of the child, but desire of the
\nparents including mother was that as per the caste customs, the
\naccused should discharge his customary obligation. She has used
\nwords, which are popularly known amongst tribal  i.e. these words are
\n“Lafru Bhangvu”, meaning thereby, the marriage performed by
\nthe girl against will and wish of her parents can be regularised on
\ndischarging social obligation by distributing sweets etc. to the
\nmembers of family of bride. That obligation was not discharged by the
\naccused and that grievance has been expressed by this witness –
\nmother P.W.3 Ratanben. According to her, on the date of incident,
\n“Lafru” was till existing and was not performing by any
\ncustomary right, so the such lady whether would commit suicide or
\nwould resolve to any other action, is  a question. The letter
\naddressed to the police is nothing but an expression of apprehension
\nthat she apprehended about her death at the hand of the accused
\nperson i.e. present appellant accused  and his first wife. So, if the
\npolice found that the author of the letter is dead then the police
\ncan investigate whether the death is natural or homicidal. The head
\nof the letter Exhibit 10 clearly suggests that she might be feeling
\nhigher insecurity and unsafe. She has also stated that financially
\nexploitation has been made in past and still that activity was going
\non by the appellant No. 1 – accused. The entry of his wife i.e.
\noriginal accused No.2 in the house on the date of incident or any
\nday, prior to the day of incident may have envied her and her entry
\nin the house perhaps was viewed as a planned action of the accused
\nNo.1 and therefore, the letter was written  to the police, which was
\nreceived by the concern police station and entry in the police diary
\nwas made. So, when the accused No.1 and his first wife were sleeping,
\nthe deceased had left the house and committed suicide. Nobody is in
\nthis world, who can explain that why she jumped into a well. Perhaps
\nthere were possibility that his husband may be found sleeping with
\nhis first wife in her house i.e. in the house of the deceased.
\nWhatever that it may, but the act of the suicide is individual act of
\nthe deceased and it is difficult for this Court to say that the
\npresent – accused No.1 had abated in that act. It was not possible
\nfor  her to live in the house with child, when the appellant was
\nsleeping with his first wife peacefully and may have taken other
\nlegal records, then it is probable that she may have jumped into a
\nwell under depression or frustration of insecurity. It would not be
\nsufficient to link the appellant – accused with the crime punishable
\nunder Section 306 and the findings of the learned trial Judge to link
\nthe accused with the offence punishable under Section 306 appears to
\nbe more moral than legal. The prosecution is supposed to prove by
\nsufficient evidence may be circumstantial with the act or behaviour
\nof the accused was equal to an abatment with act may be overtaken or
\nmay be an omission. True it is that suicide was expressed as result
\nand outcome of the cruelty physically and mentally as the deceased
\nwas being financially exploited by the accused . The appellant –
\naccused ought not to have been permitted to enter his first wife in
\nthe house when the deceased had returned back with her new born
\nchild. So, the conduct of the accused is found in cruelty and
\ntorturous to the deceased. It was not sufficient for the Court to
\nlink the accused with the offence under Section 306, so such
\nconviction cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the accused
\ndeserves to be acquitted from the charge of all these offences.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tBut
\nthe evidence that has been pointed out and referred hereinabove,
\nwhile narrating the submissions by the learned advocate of the
\nappellant – accused as well as learned A.P.P., according to me, the
\nprosecution has satisfactorily established the charge of the offence
\nunder Section 498 (A) by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The
\nmother of the deceased Ratanben – P.W. 3 has proved something about
\nthe situation that on the date of the commission of the suicide, his
\nfirst wife Laxmiben was present in their house, where the deceased
\nwas is in circumstances of mental cruelty. She has narrated the
\ndetails about the nature of mental cruelty that she was facing
\nincluding financial exploitation in the document Exhibit 10. It is in
\nthe evidence that she had expressed about the conduct of the
\nappellant – accused to the school Principal. P.W.1, Principal of
\nschool teacher has stated on oath that the deceased was on pregnancy
\nleave, so the Department had accepted that the deceased was granted
\npregnancy leave. According to this witness, the deceased Amariben had
\ndelivered girl child at village Jashvantpura and thereafter, the
\nappellant – accused had brought back the deceased Amariben to their
\nhome at village Bhetali. It is stated by this witness that the
\nappellant – accused had come in the school on 26.3.1992 in the
\nafternoon, and made an inquiry about where the deceased Amariben had
\ngiven any application and where this witness known about that through
\none other teacher Lilivatiben was called to inquire into query placed
\nby the appellant. But on that day, deceased Amariben had not
\nresponded to the query. On that evening, the appellant – accused had
\ncome to School again and had requested this witness to take seat on
\nthe scooter, at that time, this witness had said that when deceased
\nAmariben was carrying on girl child, he may be taken on the scooter,
\nbut the accused had insisted, so that this witness took seat on his
\nscooter and thereafter, the appellant – accused rode the scooter and
\nhe had left the school. At that time, the teacher Lilavatiben was
\nalso with deceased Amariben and this witness was not aware as to how
\nthe deceased Amariben and Lilavatiben had returned to their
\nrespective homes. It is stated by this witness that the incident had
\noccurred on 26.3.1992 between appellant – accused and deceased
\nAmariben, had never happened in the past. He had stated that he had
\nnever thought for this conduct of the appellant – accused and after
\nfew hours, it was clear that the deceased Amariben committed suicide.
\nIgnorance of literal wife and or indirect insult is mental cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tAs
\ndiscussed earlier, permitting to enter his first wife in the house of
\ndeceased Amariben with new born child, is an act of the appellant –
\naccused, which can be said to be a cruel act. The document Exhibit 10
\nindicates that she was financially exploited and the demand of money
\nwere made by the appellant – accused frequently. She has stated that
\non account of this, she was falling in starving. It is not in
\nevidence that this Court can notice on one fact based on biological
\nreasons assigned that the pregnant lady or lady, who has given birth
\nto child, need more food, as such women are feeling more hungry then
\nother normal women. She was facing very much financial problem and
\nthere should be possibility to go into depression and the present
\nappellant – accused was the responsible person for creating this
\nsituation. The deceased was dropped woman, but self respect is
\nprivilege of each individual. The accused depended on the income of
\ndeceased Amariben after performing second marriage with her and was
\nunder legal as well as moral obligation to see that she may be
\ntreated well and may not be felt to insult or ignore. It is settled
\nposition that the cruelty includes mental cruelty, physical marks
\nfalls over the body are not required to be proved by the prosecution.
\nThe date of the application received by the police is  26.3.1992 and
\nthe evidence of P.W. 1 also show that on 26.3.1992, the appellant –
\naccused had come to the school to inquire whether the deceased
\nAmariben had made an application to the Principal of school or not.
\nHe must have been frightened that the deceased may complaint
\ngenuinely to the school authority and Government and  he may lose the
\njob or at least, may invite some departmental action, so anxiety of
\nthe appellant – accused is found, which is exposed in the deposition
\nof P.W.1. When the deceased Amariben felt in creating apprehension in
\nthe mind that she may be killed by her husband is sufficient  to
\nconclude that the wife must have been treated with cruelty either
\nmentally or physically or both types of cruelty and that too
\nfrequently  made otherwise the defence ought to have prove that she
\nwas a patient of depression. No such suggestive evidence made to the
\nschool teacher or other witnesses including mother. Meaning thereby,
\nthere is sufficient evidence to show that the deceased was treated
\nwith cruelty and that had led her to frustration and thereafter,
\ndepression, this is not an act of commission of suicide of a lady
\nwith child. She had decided to jump into the well leaving the child
\nand accused behind, therefore, the act of the suicide appears to be
\nintentional act to get rid of the frequent insult, ignorance and
\nexploitation. The learned trial Judge has rightly linked the accused
\nwith the offence punishable under Section 498 (A). There is no error
\nin evaluating the evidence so far as cruelty is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tThe
\nevidence of the expert, P.W.1 Principal vis-a-vis other undisputed
\ndocuments written by the deceased Amariben have been considered by
\nme. A fair comparison of these documents from the original R & P,
\nwhich before this Court and the detail cross-examination made by
\nhandwritings expert, it is not possible for this Court to accept the
\nsay of Mr. Anandjiwala that the document Exhibit 10 is got up
\ndocument or created document after commission of suicide. The
\nbackground under which the letter must have been written, have been
\ndiscussed in earlier paragraphs and I have recorded the reasons and
\nalso finding that the letter clearly reveals that she was treated
\nwith cruelty by the accused also and therefore, only she had started
\nfeeling unsafe and was also apprehending that she may be killed. It
\nis not possible for this Court to observe that the learned trial
\nJudge has committed any error in receiving the document Exhibit 10 in
\nevidence and same is reliable piece of evidence to bring all the
\ncharge of offence punishable under Section 498 (A). The evidence of
\nthe mother corroborates the case of the prosecution about the
\ncruelty. When it is not matter of dispute that the accused No.2 was
\npresent in the house on the day on which the deceased committed
\nsuicide and the letter received by the police was written perhaps to
\nbefore a day or two of the date of incident, also is the
\ncircumstances which is fulfilled by prosecution and not the accused.
\nFor short, the prosecution has proved that the deceased was treated
\nwith cruelty, which is punishable under Section 498 (A) of Indian
\nPenal code.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tIt
\nis difficult to accept the say of Mr. Anandjiwala, learned advocate
\nthat there is no evidence of presence of the accused No.2 in the very
\nhouse, where the accused and the victim were there on that very
\nnight. The written explanation given by both the accused persons,
\nwhich is not signed by both of them and has been tendered as joint
\nexplanation is an attempt to explain adequacy that had occurred at
\nthe time of explanation. Both of them jointly signed as they started
\ninquiring about the deceased Amariben as she had been returned after
\ncomplying call of nature. It is claimed by both of them that the
\ndeceased Amariben had outside the house to reply the call of nature
\nand the well is near one water tank and the machine is fixed on it
\nand at the time of fetching the water from the water tank, and under
\nthe hysterical, she had fallen into the well. They have claimed that
\nperhaps she may have fallen in the well because of mental stress from
\none Rameshbhai. This explanation is a typed document explanation and
\nit is added that the level of the well is later than the level of
\nearth and when they inquiring about deceased Amariben, they came to
\nknow that she had fallen down in the well. They have claimed that
\nthereafter they had informed Shamlaji Police Station. They were to
\nask to sit in the Shamlaji Police Station and an application was
\ngiven with the signature of accused No.1. Both of them claimed that
\nthe contents of the application are not correct details and same has
\nbeen written by the police when informing them and they were not even
\nto make understand, when this facts have been stated. It would not be
\nproper for this Court to accept the say of Mr. Anandjiwala, learned
\nadvocate that the accused No.2 was not present in the house at all.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tBoth
\nthe accused have explained that the deceased Amariben was not a
\nlegally wedded wife to appellant – accused. They have also stated
\nthat there are rituals, which required to be performed to regularise
\nthe marriage performed as per the custom. The defence witness
\nexamined vide Exhibit 75 i.e. one Maljibhai Dhanjibhai Kharade has
\nstated that to avoid embargo of irregular marriage, which is
\npopularly known as “Lafru”, firstly, the girl is required
\nto be sent at the house of the parents and after payment something,
\nin presence of the members of the community, the girl is again sent
\nwith the boy. It is submitted that this procedure was not followed,
\nso the deceased Amariben cannot be said to be a wife of the appellant\n<\/p>\n
– accused and to bring all the charges of the offence punishable
\nunder Section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is
\nsupposed to establish that the case prosecuted is against husband or
\nrelatives of the husband or person in relation of the husband. It
\nwould be beneficial to reproduce the relevant Section 498 (A), while
\ninterpreting the scheme of Section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tSection
\n498  (A):\tHusband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
\ncruelty <\/p>\n
\t“Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
\nwoman, \tsubjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
\nimprisonment for a \tterm which may extend to three years and shall
\nalso be liable to fine.”\n<\/p>\n
20.\t\tThe
\ncase of Ramnarayan & Others (Supra) relied upon by Mr.
\nAnandjiwala, wherein Madhaya Pradesh High Court has observed that “It
\nmust be shown that the victim woman was legally married woman. Import
\nof provisions could not be extended so as to include a woman married
\nimpact, but whose married was void.”\n<\/p>\n
10.1\t\tIn
\npara 8 of the judgment in the case of Ramnarayan  (Supra), Madhaya
\nPradesh High Court has observed thus, but this Judgment would not
\nhelp the appellant – accused because the same subsequently has been
\noverruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reema Aggarwal
\nVs. Anupam and Others (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 199.
\nWhen the attention of Mr. Anandjiwala was drawn, he has fairly
\nsubmitted that he was not aware about the observation made by the
\nHon’ble Apex Court. In reference to the decision of Madhaya Pradesh
\nHigh Court in Ramnarayan case  (Supra), the ratio laid down in the
\ncase of Reema Aggarwal Vs. Anupam and others (2004) 3, SCC 199 and
\nequivalent to 2004 (3)  Crime 199 is the the case of the prosecution.
\nThe learned advocate Mr. Anandjiwala has attempted to distinct the
\nratio of the judgment in case of Reema Aggarwal (Supra) and he said
\nthat the facts of the present case are materially different. In the
\ncase before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the second wife was harassing by
\nlegally wedded wife and therefore, the victim wife prosecuted her
\nhusband and the second wife. According to me, the description in the
\ncase of Reema Aggarwal (Supra), mainly paras 8, 9 and 10 is directly
\nanswered to the points agitated by Mr. Anandjiwala. It would be
\nbeneficial to reproduce the relevant paras of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\t“8. \tIn response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
\nthat to constitute a marriage in the eye of the law, it has first to
\nbe established that the same was a valid marriage. Strong reliance
\nwas placed on Bhaurao Shakar Lokhande V. State of Maharashtra<\/a>
\nin that context. Reference was also made to Section 5 (i), 11 and 16
\nof the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Marriage Act”)
\nto contend that the stipulations of conditions of a valid marriage,
\nthe circumstances in which the marriage becomes void and the
\nprotection given to children of void and voidable marriages
\nrespectively makes the position clear that wherever the legislature
\nwanted to provide for contingencies flowing from void or voidable
\nmarriages, it has specifically done so. It is latently evident from
\nSection 16 of the Marriage Act. There is no such indication in
\nSection 498-A IPC. The language used is “husband or relative of
\nthe husband”. Marriage is a legal union of a man and a woman as
\nhusband and wife and cannot extend to a woman whose marriage is void
\nand not a valid in the eye of the law.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The marriage contracted between Hindus are now statutorily made
\nmonogamous. A sanctity has been attributed to the first marriage as
\nbeing that which was contracted from a sense of duty and not merely
\nfor personal gratification. When the fact of celebration of marriage
\nis established, it will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the
\ncontrary that all the rites and ceremonies to constitute a valid
\nmarriage have been gone through. As was said as long back as in 1869
\n“when once you get to this viz. that there was a marriage in
\nfact, there would be a presumption in favour of there being a
\nmarriage in law”. So also where a man and woman have been proved
\nto have lived together as husband and wife, the law will presume,
\nuntil contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in
\nconsequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.\n<\/p>\n
 The bare fact that a man and woman live as husband and wife does not
\nat rate normally give them
\nthe status of husband and wife even though they may hold themselves
\nbefore the society as husband and wife and the society treats them as
\nhusband and wife.\n<\/p>\n
These observations were cited with approval in Surjit Kaur V.
\nGarja Singh. At first blush, it would seem that these
\nobservations run counter to the long catena of decisions noted above.
\nBut on closer examination of the facts of those cases it is clear
\nthat this Court did not differ from the views expressed in the
\nearlier cases. In Lokhande case, this Court was dealing with a
\ncase of prosecution for bigamy. The prosecution had contended that
\nsecond marriage was gandharava form of marriage and no ceremonies
\nwere necessary and, therefore, did not allege or prove that any
\ncustomary ceremonies were performed. In that background, it was held
\nthat even in the case of gandharva under Section 494 IPC, the second
\nmarriage had to be a valid marriage at all in the eye of the law and
\nwas therefore, invalid. The essential ingredient constituting  the
\noffence of bigamy is the “marrying” again during the
\nlifetime of husband or wife in contract to the ingredients of Section
\n498-A which Lamont other things, envisage subjecting the woman
\nconcerned to cruelty. The thrust is mainly on “marrying” in
\nSection 494 IPC as against subjecting of the woman to cruelty in
\nSection 498-A. Likewise, the thrust of the offence under Section
\n304-B is also on “dowry death”. Consequently, the evils
\nsought to be curbed are distinct and separate from the persons
\ncommitting the offending act and there could be no impediment in law
\nto liberally construe the words or expression relating to the persons
\ncommitting the offence so as to rope in not only those validly
\nmarriage but also anyone who has undergone some or other form of
\nmarriage and thereby assumed for himself the position of husband to
\nlive, cohabit and exercise authority as such husband over another
\nwoman. As the prosecution had set up a a please of gandharva marriage
\nand had failed to prove the performance of ceremonies, it was not
\nopen to fall back upon the presumption of a valid marriage. It was
\nfurther held that there was no such presumption, if the man was
\nalready married. In Surjit Singh Case the stand was that the marriage
\nwas in karewa form. This Court held that under the custom of karewa
\nmarriage, the widow could marry the brother or a relation of the
\nhusband. But in that case, the man was stranger. Further, even under
\nthe form of marriage certain ceremonies were required to be performed
\nwhich were not proved. Dealing with the contention relating to
\npresumption, reference was made to Kokhande case. As the parties had
\nset up a particular form of marriage which turned out to be invalid
\ndue to absence of proof of having undergone the necessary ceremonies
\nrelated to such form of marriage, the presumption of long
\ncohabitation could not be invoked.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.\tThe presumption may not be available in case, for example, where
\nthe man was already married or there was any insurmountable obstacle
\nto the marriage, but presumption arises if there is strong evidence
\nby documents and conduct.\n<\/p>\n
21.\t\tThe
\nfindings of the Hon’ble Apex Court is that the husband after
\nconducting second marriage during subsistence of earlier marriage,
\ncan be charged under Section 304B and 498 (A) of the Indian Penal
\nCode. Here the appellant – accused is a husband, who has been held
\nguilty of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 498
\n(A), who had posed himself to be a husband of the wife. He had
\napproached the school Principal  in the capacity of husband of the
\ndeceased Amariben and had inquired whether the deceased Amariben had
\nmade any application or given application to the Principal teacher
\nand the fact stated that the deceased Amariben and in capacity of the
\nhusband has not been disputed by substantially. On the contrary, the
\nappellant – accused has not disputed that he is a father of the child
\ndelivered by the deceased Amariben. The accused No.2 has been
\nacquitted, has claimed that the deceased Amariben was visiting even
\nher house and she had helped her at the time of her delivery of girl
\nchild. Whether the marriage is accepted as valid by relatives,
\nfriends and others for long time, it cannot be declared invalid, it
\nis specifically mentioned in document Exhibit 10 that before
\ncohabitation, some formalities were observed at Himatnagar. Even the
\ndefence side has accepted substantially that the appellant – accused
\nhas accepted the deceased Amariben as his wife and she  had started
\nresiding with the appellant – accused as husband and ultimately, she
\nbecame mother of the a child. When no specific ceremony was required
\nto be performed prior to cohabitation, the ceremony which was
\nrequired to be performed can be said to be a formalities carved out
\nby the society before approving the marriage performed by the man and
\nwoman from the Schedule Tribe. The marriage that was performed
\nbetween the appellant – accused and deceased Amariben was contrary to
\nthe customs of the Tribes on which they belonged. So the marriage was
\nnot accepted by the family of the deceased Amariben, therefore, the
\nexistence of marriage is one fact and its acceptance by the family of
\neither of the spouse is a different thing.\n<\/p>\n
22.\t\tIn
\nthe case of John Idiculla and another Vs. State of Kerala and
\nanother reported in 2005 Cri. L. J. 2935, whereby Kerala High
\nCourt has observed the second wife of the husband, who married with
\nthe applicant subsistence of his early legal marriage was considered
\nto be a person relative to the husband for the purpose of Section 498
\n(A). In this case, the first wife was being harassed by the husband
\nas well as second wife and the defence plea whose second wife cannot
\nbe said to be a person in relation to the husband because there was
\nno legal or valid marriage between the second wife and the husband
\nand the complainant woman. The ratio of this judgment would help the
\nprosecution. The phrase second wife is sufficient to confer the
\nstatus to marry with the husband. There is clear distinction between
\na kept or concubinage a second wife. The appellant – accused belongs
\nto class of persons i.e. Tribes where the marriage are being
\nperformed as per the rituals accepted by particular time  and what
\ncould have the position, if “Lafra” could have resolved by
\nthe family members of the deceased Amariben, is crucial question
\nwhere the deceased Amariben could have got the status of wife or she
\nwould remain second wife because it is difficult for this Court to
\nbelieve as submitted by Mr. Anandjiwala that the deceased Amariben
\nwould not have got status of wife as the marriage of the appellant –
\naccused was very well in existence.\n<\/p>\n
23.
\n\tIn the case of State of Karnatak V. Shivraj and another
\nreported in 2002 Cri. L.J. 2741, Karnataka High Court has
\nobserved that “unless and until it is specifically pleaded,
\ncontested and established that marriage in question was void, the
\nCourt will presume marriage to be valid one and parties to be treated
\nas husband and wife. Here the original accused No.2 was chargesheeted
\nwith the present appellant – accused, saying that she is the wife of
\nthe appellant – accused, but the marriage performed between the
\ndeceased Amariben and the appellant – accused is being a marriage
\nperformed as per the caste customs and rituals of the Tribes of which
\nthey belonged to. So, it is difficult for this Court to observe that
\nas certain rituals i.e. after marriage ceremony were not performed,
\nwhich was required to be performed to satisfy the family members of
\nthe deceased Amariben including the mother of the deceased Amariben
\netc. would go to the root or strength of the validity of the
\nmarriage. It is difficult for this Court to observe that the codified
\nHindu Law was applicable to the appellant – accused and the deceased
\nAmariben being the members of Schedule Tribe in stricto senso. The
\nHon’ble Apex Court therefore, in the case of Reema Aggarwal (Supra)
\nhas made observations in reference to the validity of a marriage.
\nKeeping in mind the relevant Sections 7 and 8 of the Hindu Marriage
\nAct, 1955 that the marriage between the appellant – accused and
\ndeceased Amariben was tribal marriage and she was enjoying status of
\nsecond wife. She was given even pregnancy leave by Government
\nDepartment and after delivering the child, she had resumed the
\nduties, where she was serving.  The marriage performed by a tribal as
\nper rituals and customs cannot be treated Hindu Marriage defined and
\nexplained in the codified of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The
\nHon’ble Supreme Court therefore, in the case of Reema Aggarwal
\n(Supra) as discussed, the claim under Section 494 of Indian Penal
\nCode in above referred para 9 of the judgment. If the second marriage
\nis automatically void, how could be any prosecution for bigamy. Here
\nin the present case, second marriage was performed by the appellant –
\naccused with the deceased Amariben, which can be equated with
\n“Gandharv Vivah” or love marriage and as per say of both of
\nthem, the same was permissible in their Tribe. While putting criminal
\nlaw into action, wider meaning i.e. being given by the Court.  While
\ndealing with the application under Section 125 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure should be given otherwise entire purpose be
\nprevented victimization and mental and physical cruelty to woman,
\nperhaps may not be taken care of well and as per the intention of the
\nlegislature. So, conviction under Section 498 (A) is found
\nsustainable. Merely the deceased wife Amariben was a second wife
\nwould not make prosecution or conviction unsustainable in the eye of
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
24.\t\tThe
\ndefence witness examined does not carry the case of the appellant –
\naccused in any direction and it appears that this man was to see that
\nthe accused are saved any how. His deposition is full of
\ncontradiction and conflict with the opinion given by the handwritings
\nexpert. His oral version is also to the contrary to the version given
\nby the Principal teacher, who was knowing the handwritings of the
\ndeceased Amariben since last five years. The petitioner witness has
\ndenied that the handwritings in daily book that are of the deceased
\nAmariben, though he has admitted that he himself has written his
\ndaily book, as a teacher of the school which is required to be
\nmaintained as per direction given by the Department. He has described
\nas to in what manner, the “Lafra” can be resolved . It
\nappears that he has attempted to act as an all rounder for the
\ndefence side. He has admitted during cross-examination that though he
\nis a teacher, was prosecuted for the offence punishable under the
\nBombay Prohibition Act, in the year. In cross-examination he has
\nstated that the case against me was dismissed by the Court, but
\nthereafter, he has admitted that that on the date of deposition, the
\ncase against him was pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Bhiloda. He
\nhas even shown ignorance about the seizure of the documents from the
\nschool including daily book, leave report given by the deceased
\nAmariben etc. The Court is of the view that the learned trial Judge
\nought to have ordered prosecution against this witness for deliberate
\nlie to provide cover to the persons accused. The total denial of this
\nwitness regarding handwritings of the deceased Amariben, on the
\ncontrary, he has added some force as to the case of the prosecution
\nabout genuineness of the handwritings of the deceased Amariben
\notherwise he could have stated that in undisputed document like daily
\nbook, there are handwritings of the deceased Amariben, but he has not
\nstated anything about handwritings in Exhibit 10, letter written by
\nthe deceased Amariben. So the argument advanced by Mr. Anandjiwala is
\nnot accepted.\n<\/p>\n
25.\t\tIt
\nis difficult for this Court to say that the accused cannot convict
\nfor the charges of offence punishable under Section 498 (A), raising
\na technical plea, that was taken before the trial Court. The same
\nplea has been placed again agitated before this court in reference to
\nthe social status. But in view of the aforesaid discussion, this plea
\nof defence is not found acceptable. For short, there is no merits in
\nappeal so far as conviction recorded by the learned trial Court for
\nthe offence punishable under Section 498 (A).\n<\/p>\n
26.\t\tIt
\nis submitted by Mr. Anandjiwala that the appellant – accused being a
\nGovt. servant and under conviction, the appellant – accused would
\nlose of benefits including the job, that would be the biggest
\npunishment to the accused. It would be practically a civil death. He
\nshall have to undertake all responsibility to maintain the children
\nof his first wife and the daughter of the deceased Amariben. This
\nsubmission was also made during the trail and even on the date of
\njudgment. The learned trial Judge has imposed substantive sentence of
\none year for the offence punishable under Section 498 (A), the
\nlearned trial Judge could have imposed three years R.I.  The accused
\nis enjoying bail since the year 1994 and the incident in question is
\nof the year 1992, so lapse of about 15 years, if the person is asked
\nto go to the prison for a period of about one year in prison would be
\na longer period, so some reduction may be given in the substantive
\nsentence imposed.\n<\/p>\n
27.\t\tHaving
\nconsidered the totality of the facts and circumstances that have been
\nemerged in the present case, including financial exploitation, made
\nof deceased Amariben, if she had decided to stay with appellant –
\naccused as wife, according to me the punishment of one year is less
\nthan adequate punishment and the same should not be reduced further.
\nLeniency is already shown by the learned trial Court by imposing only
\n1\/3rd of the period of punishment prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
28.\t\tFor
\nthe reasons aforesaid, the present appeal is partly allowed. The
\njudgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Himatnagar in Sessions Case No.59 of 1992,
\nso far as the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal
\nCode, is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and order of
\nconviction and sentence qua the offence punishable under Section 498
\n(A) is humbly upheld. The sentence of fine shall remain unaltered so
\nfar as offence punishable under Section 498 (A) is concerned and
\nthose findings are upheld.\n<\/p>\n
29.\tAt
\npresent as the appellant is on bail for the last about 13 years, he
\nis ordered to surrender himself before the concerned Jail Authority
\non or before 26.10.2007, failing which the learned trial Judge shall
\nissue a non-bailable warrant for arrest to secure his presence, so
\nthat he can be sent to prison to serve the sentence. Bail bond stands
\ncancelled.\n<\/p>\n
(C.K.\n<\/p>\n
BUCH, J.)<\/p>\n
ynvyas<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Kantilal vs The on 8 February, 2011 Author: C.K.Buch,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/294\/1994 36\/ 36 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 294 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-226850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKantilal vs The on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kantilal vs The on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-17T01:35:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"45 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kantilal vs The on 8 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-17T01:35:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":8809,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Kantilal vs The on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-17T01:35:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kantilal vs The on 8 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kantilal vs The on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kantilal vs The on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-17T01:35:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"45 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kantilal vs The on 8 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-17T01:35:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011"},"wordCount":8809,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011","name":"Kantilal vs The on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-17T01:35:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-vs-the-on-8-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kantilal vs The on 8 February, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=226850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}