The State of Gujarat has filed the appeal being aggrieved by judgement and order dated 11th May 1990 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.101 of 1988. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused for the offence under section 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution as set out by the learned Judge in paras 1 and 2 of the impugned judgement is reproduced hereunder for ready perusal. “1. .. .. on or about 7th of March 1987 the accused Maniben, wife of Fataji Somaji being the mother of husband of deceased Laxmiben residing in Thakorwas, Hirapur, Asarwa, Ahmedabad subjected deceased to cruelty by exhibiting willful conduct of such a nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide.
2. And/ or in the alternative, Laxmi committed suicide and the accused Maniben abetted the commission of such suicide and that way the accused is alleged to have been committed offence punishable u/s 498-A and 306 of IPC.”
The learned APP, Mr.Pujari vehemently submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed error in not believing the case of the prosecution and not convicting the accused for the offence with which she was charged. The learned APP invited attention of the Court to Exhibit 2-Charge; Exhibit 11, PW-2, deposition of Panchabhai Gulab-bhai Thakore, brother of the deceased. The learned APP also invited attention of the Court to the deposition of PW-3, Exh.13-Khodaji Lalji Thakore, a relative of the deceased on her parental side. The learned APP then invited attention of the Court to the deposition of PW-4, Exh.14-Maganbhai Mulabhai Parmar, Executive Magistrate. Last, but not the least the dying declaration, Exhibit 15.
2. On perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it is noticed that deceased- Laxmi, who was married with son of the accused had married about 10 years before the incident. She had two children; son, aged 5 years and daughter, aged 3 years (at the time of the incident). Brother of the deceased tried to attribute ill treatment to the accused by saying that there used to be frequent quarrels at the in- law's place of the deceased on account of dowry. He has then stated that the accused used to give threats that she will set the deceased afire. He has also stated that on 15-20 occasions the deceased had come to her parental home as she was driven away by her in-laws. The witness has tried to substantiate his allegations by saying that about 10-15 days before the incident his sister had come to parental home as she was beaten on account of dowry, but persons from parental side had taken her to her in-laws' place and had told the in-laws of the deceased not to repeat such things.
3. What is important is that in the cross-examination this witness is not able to substantiate the allegations made by him. In the examination in chief he has clearly stated that they belong to the community which has a written constitution. But then he pleads ignorance of the provision contained in the said constitution forbidding the practice of offering and/ or acceptance of dowry. He has admitted in the cross-examination that before the incident they have never given any notice or complaint about the demand of dowry. He has also to admit in his cross-examination that there is 'Panch' of Gyati and in that Panch also no complaint was ever filed. He has admitted in cross-examination that even when the deceased had come to her parental home about 15 days prior to the incident no complaint was filed in the Police.
4. Similarly, PW-3, Exh.13-Khodaji Lalji Thakore is examined to bring home the case of the prosecution that the accused was causing mental torture to the deceased, but this witness states that it was on account of insufficient gifts at the time of birth of child that the accused along with other members of the family of in-laws were causing harassment to the deceased. Thus, two witnesses, who are examined to bring home the case of the prosecution gave different stories; one says about the demand of dowry, whereas the other states insufficient gifts at the time of birth of child.
5. In this case, dying declaration is very clear and on reading of dying declaration it appears that even after a long span of about 10 years of marriage the deceased was not able to be comfortable with her mother in law, the accused herein. She has clearly stated that she was very comfortable with her husband and she has no complaint against her husband. It is very important to note that the dying declaration has not uttered a word about harassment/ torture being caused by demanding dowry or even insufficient gifts at the time of birth of child.
Not only that except mother in law she has not attributed any ill treatment at the hands of any other member of in-law's family. The only thing which is narrated by the deceased in her dying declaration is that there used to be quarrels between the deceased and her mother in law. The deceased has stated that for 4-5 times she had gone to her parental home 'risamne'. So far as the day of the incident is concerned she has stated that at around 04.00 PM when she was at her residential premises which are two in number, one place they are residing in the joint family and other premises which was used for going to sleep, her mother in law abused her and said that, 'where deceased has gone; she is worth nothing and she does not die'. It is the statement of the deceased herself that after her mother in law said so, she went to other place (residential premises) and there she poured kerosene on herself and ignited her own. On a careful consideration of the evidence which had come on record the only inference which can be drawn is that the deceased was more sensitive than a normal person. Otherwise, on the day of the incident she does not narrate any serious quarrel having taken place and therefore, on a careful consideration this Court is of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed error in recording acquittal in the matter. Incidentally, it may be recorded that on the day of the incident the accused was aged 50 years. By now she must be above 70 years. What is weighing with the Court is that after having two children and after lapse of more than 10 years from the date of marriage if a person reacts to a normal quarrel in the family in such a manner the accused cannot be held guilty for the offences which are alleged against her. It was for the deceased to find out a solution to the problem, instead she preferred to commit suicide, which was not warranted, more particularly, when she stated that her relations with her husband were cordial and that she has no complaint against her husband. They had two separate premises to live. But in place of finding an amicable solution she over-reacted to the comments by the accused, which is not expected of any reasonable and prudent person. In the result, her own children are deprived of mother's care.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion the judgment and order dated 11th May 1990 rendered by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.101 of 1988 is upheld. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds issued against the accused are cancelled.
(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) (G.B. SHAH, J.) karim