Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 803 (GUJ)

Shakuntalaben Dattatray v. State of Gujarat

2015-08-14

G.R.UDHWANI

body2015
Judgment G.R. Udhwani, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") by impugned judgment and order dated 22.06.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, Camp at Vyara in Sessions Case No. 84 of 1998 lodged against the appellant, who is the mother-in-law of deceased-Alkaben and two others viz. Popat Dattatray Suryavanshi-husband of the deceased and Dattatray Bhimsingh Suryavanshi-father-in-law of the deceased. The appeal is preferred only by the mother-in-law-original accused No. 3. 2. By impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one and half years with a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and three years with a fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and a default sentence respectively of one month and two months simple imprisonment is also imposed upon the appellant. This appeal is, therefore, filed questioning the impugned judgment and order under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."). 3. During the trial, the father of the deceased Exh:9 and son-in-law of brother of the complainant Exh:16 amongst other witnesses were examined and documentary evidence was adduced. Since evidences of other witnesses do not implicate the appellant directly, it is unnecessary to elaborately discuss the same in this judgment. 4. In the FIR Exh:10, the complainant-father of the deceased PW:1 Exh:9 came out with the story that his daughter deceased aged 18 years was married to Popat Dattatray Suryavanshi before about six months of the date of the incident and she was taken to the place of the accused by them from her parental house on 16.11.1997 and within a month thereafter, PW:1 approached deceased and her in-laws at her matrimonial house of the deceased with a request to the appellant to let deceased accompany him to her paternal house. The request was turned down with a demand of money. It is also the case of the complainant that he learnt about the harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased from her. The request was turned down with a demand of money. It is also the case of the complainant that he learnt about the harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased from her. The complainant returned without deceased on that day and after some time, he again went to the in-laws of the deceased at her matrimonial house on 28.12.1997 to fetch her and no one was found present there except the appellant from whom, he learnt on inquiry that the deceased had gone to respond to nature's call at about 5:00 a.m. and after her return, she left the house stating that she was going for collection of animal dung, but did not return thereafter. As he could not trace her even after inquiry with his relations, the appellant lodged the complaint that the deceased was missing. The complainant, however, smelt a foul play and suspected the deceased having committed suicide on account of cruelty and harassment meted out by in-laws to her. The complainant, therefore, went to Bhuriwell Ukai area in search of the deceased and had a night halt in the house of Rameshbhai Bajirav PW:6 Exh:16. On the next morning i.e. 29.12.1997, the search for her was continued and ultimately, her dead body was found floating on the water, stuck in the net of the water canal near Thermal Power Station. 5. After necessary formalities, investigation and committal of the case to the Court of sessions and framing of the charges and the appellant having disputed the charges and having claimed trial, the case was put to trial and on completion of the prosecution evidence and recording the documentary evidence and after recording the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the impugned judgment and order came to be pronounced. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited the attention of this Court to oral as well as documentary evidence and the impugned judgment and order and has contended that apart from the fact that the FIR or the oral evidence does not attribute any specific incidents of harassment or cruelty as defined in Sections 498A and 306 of IPC to the appellant, the allegations are vague and general and PW:1 omitted to mention in the FIR that when he went to the matrimonial house of the deceased for the first time, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/-. 15,000/- to 20,000/-. It is also contended that the prosecution failed to bring on record any serious incident preceding the alleged suicidal act, on the date of the incident. In his submission, no neighbours, who could have thrown light of actual occurrence immediately before the incident, were examined and thus, no case attracting any of the ingredients of Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of IPC was established. 6.1 Learned counsel submitted that had there been any serious incident immediately before the alleged suicide of the deceased, the deceased could have either gone to the police or to Rameshbhai, who stayed in the same village. In his submission, the prosecution could not have relied upon the so-called statement made by the deceased to PW:1 eight days prior to the incident in question, as a dying declaration. 6.2 Learned counsel submitted that none of the witnesses are able to give any account of the incident that would attract the ingredients of Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of IPC. He would, therefore, urge to allow the appeal and record the acquittal for the appellant. 7. As against that, learned APP vehemently submitted, while relying upon the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment and the findings rendered therein by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the statements made by the deceased as proved through PW:1 and PW:6 and other witnesses were serious enough to attract the ingredients of Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of IPC, in a case where the unfortunate incident occurred within six months of the marital life of the deceased. In the submission of learned APP, very specific statements about harassment and demand of dowry have been proved by evidence against the appellant, and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order. 8. Having considered the rival contentions and the evidence on record and the impugned judgment and order, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the statements made in evidence by various witnesses, more particularity PW:1 and PW:6 are vague and general and none of the witnesses are able to depose or point out any serious or grave incident that would attract Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of IPC. PW:1 at Exh:9 deposes to almost same facts stated by him in the FIR except that in addition to what is stated by him in the FIR, he specifies the amount of money demanded in dowry by in-laws of the deceased on the date when he went to fetch the deceased from her in-laws place. The contents of the FIR are elaborately narrated hereinabove, and therefore, there is no necessity of elaborately discussing the deposition of PW:1 except to say that his deposition is vague and general. 8.1 PW:6 Exh:16 has also deposed that the husband of deceased-Popat Dattatray Suryavanshi used to consume liquor and beat the deceased, her mother-in-law used to abuse her, her father-in-law also used to consume liquor and that the deceased was allowed meals only once a day and that money were being demanded from the deceased. Thus, this witness also has not narrated any specific incident of such a degree, as would be sufficient to attract the aforestated provisions. From the bare perusal of Section 498A of IPC, more particularly the explanation thereto which defines cruelty, it is clear that to attract the said provision, the cruelty must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health and or the harassment must be such as would coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or that such harassment is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. There is no evidence on record to infer the degree or nature of cruelty as would either drive the deceased to commit suicide or would coerce her to cause injury to her body, etc. There is also no evidence of the harassment of a nature as would coerce the deceased or her in-laws to satisfy the demand of money by in-laws of the deceased. 8.2 Section 306 of IPC prescribes the punishment for abetment of suicide and abetment has been defined in Section107 of IPC. There is also no evidence of the harassment of a nature as would coerce the deceased or her in-laws to satisfy the demand of money by in-laws of the deceased. 8.2 Section 306 of IPC prescribes the punishment for abetment of suicide and abetment has been defined in Section107 of IPC. Under Section 107 of IPC, the person can be said to have abetted the doing of a thing under the three circumstances being (i) instigation of a person to do that thing, (ii) engagement of the abettor in conspiracy with others for the doing of that thing, as a result of which an act or illegal omission takes place and (iii) intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission in doing of that thing. In the instant case, neither there is any evidence of instigation or engagement of the accused in conspiracy or intentional aids by the accused in driving the deceased to suicide. Thus, the conviction under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of IPC cannot be sustained. 8.3 Having gone through the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the Court below did not take into consideration the relevant legal provision and did not make any effort to point out as to how the facts proved in evidence fit in the provisions of Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of IPC. Merely because some statements here and there were made and assuming that such statement amounted to cruelty or harassment, the Trial Court could not have jumped to the conclusion that such cruelty or harassment amounted to an offence under the aforestated provision without applying its mind to the said provision vis-à-vis the facts brought in evidence. 9. The impugned judgment and order, in light of the aforestated reasons, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appellant-convict is entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 22.06.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, Camp at Vyara, in Sessions Case No. 84 of 1998 is quashed and set aside. The appellant-convict is ordered to be acquitted of charges levelled against her in pursuance of the FIR being I-C.R. No. 22 of 1997 registered with Ukai Police Station, Surat. Fine, if any paid by the appellant-convict, shall be refunded. The Appeal, accordingly succeeds and is allowed. No costs. Appeal Allowed.