1. The applicant– original complainant has filed this Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No.137 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498(A), 201 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the complainant that she is residing at Krushnanagar Society, Visnagar. She his having three daughters and one son. Her husband is working as helper in G.E.B. at Visnagar. She got married her elder daughter, Jyotshnaben, with the accused, Prakashji Cheraji in the present case in 1995. Her daughter gave birth to one son and thereafter she gave birth to one daughter, who died after delivery. She has one son, namely, Jigar. The daughter of the complainant was suffering from breathing problem since last four years and therefore, inlaws of complainant's daughter, namely, Prakashji – soninlaw, Cheraji, fatherin law, Jayaben, motherinlaw were harassing her daughter because of the above ailment. Because of the harassment Jyotshnaben returned to her parents house. Thereafter, Thakor Manaji, husband of sisterinlaw of the Jyotshnaben, came to complainant's house to call Jyotshnaben giving promise that no taunting or harassment will be given to Jyotshnaben. Thereafter, Jyotshnaben and her husband Prakshji went to live separately from inlaws. On 28.6.2006, at 11:00 o'clock Jyotshnaben phoned to Premilaben Manuji, neighbour of parents of Jyotshnaben, that her fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and husband are harassing her unnecessarily and abusing her. Thereafter, one Babuji and Baldevji of Mehsana came to the complainant's house and told her that fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and husband of Jyotshnaben have murdered her and thereafter they have completed the last rituals of Jyotshnaben and have thereby destroyed the evidence.
3. The applicant original complainant filed the complaint against original accused present respondent Nos.2 to 4 before the Mehsana Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498(A), 201 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against them.
4. Thereafter charge was framed against the accused persons by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehsana in Criminal Case No.5433 of 2006 and as it was sessions triable, the case was then committed to the Sessions Court, Mehsana.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons denied the charges levelled against them of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them.
7. After hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana by his judgment and order dated 26.12.2006 passed in Sessions Case No.137 of 2006, acquitted the accused persons as stated above.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.137 of 2006, applicant – original complainant has preferred the present Revision before this Court.
9. I have heard Mrs.Rekha Kapadia, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.H.L.Jani, learned APP for the respondent State. On the other side, opponent Nos.2 to 4 are absent though matter is called out.
10. Ms.Kapadia has read oral evidence of the witnesses and contended that the complaint was filed by the complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498(A), 201 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further contended that postmortem of the deceased could not be carried out due to disposal of dead body. Looking to the act of the present respondents it shows that they are aggressors, provocators and instigators. She has lastly contended that judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is not proper as per provisions of law. The learned Judge has not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence in its true perspective. The learned Judge has, therefore, committed grave error of law and therefore, judgment and order of acquittal requires to be quashed and set aside.
11. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties at great length and in detail. Perused oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record. The P.W. No.1 Sardaben S. Thakore is examined at Ex.9. She is complainant. As per evidence of the complainant herself it appears that deceased, Jyotshnaben was suffering from disease of T.B. and therefore, she has committed suicide. It is explained by the original accused No.1 that she has tried to save deceased from sustaining injury and while doing so, she has also received injury. I have perused Sections 299 and 300 of the Penal Code. The present applicant complainant has filed complaint for the offence of murder and when the allegation is made against the present respondents for the offence of murder then it is duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that the respondents are responsible for the offence of Section 498A of the Code. From the evidence of the witnesses and documents there must be evidence to show that present respondents were provocators, instigators or abettors. I have perused Sections 107 and 108 of the Penal Code. The ingredients of both the sections are not satisfied and thereby the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even from the circumstantial evidence as well as oral evidence of the witnesses, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this case I have not found any substance.
12. I find that the findings recorded by the learned Judge are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed.
13. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any substance in the application and the same therefore deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
14. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z. K. SAIYED, J) kks