Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. As per the complaint Exh.36, which was given by deceased - Laxmiben wife of Arunbhai Somabhai Vankar, all the accused, who were residing near her house earlier had mentally and physically harassed her and being poor she had not retorted to them. The mental and physical harassment continued, which she went on bearing. On 23.03.2006, at about 2:00 in the afternoon, when deceased was all alone at home, it was alleged that Jadav Gunvantiben Jayantibhai and her three sons passed by her house speaking unpalatable things, inspite of that she had not replied. 2.1 Deceased has further stated in the complaint NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined that since those people were often harassing her mentally and physically and since she could not bear the harassment, she had gone in the toilet of her house, and by pouring kerosene had ignited herself, and when she started shouting her daughter Hinaben and the neighbours came there, even her husband had come to that place, who took her to Visnagar Government Hospital and for further treatment, she was taken to Mahesana Government Hospital. It is stated that she was severally burned over whole of her body. 2.2 The complaint of the deceased further notes that she was completely in her senses. The complaint records that Jadav Jayantibhai Narottambhai, Gunvantiben Jayantibhai, Jadav Khodidas Jayantibhai as well as Mehulbhai Jayantibhai and Ketanbhai Jayantibhai, all residents of Sudiyawada are her family relatives, who told her that she was a quarrelsome person of the family and was spoiling the family. Such NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined threats were given to her, which she could not bear therefore, on her own had poured kerosene and attempted suicide. She stated that none had burned her and that she had burnt on her own.

3.4 Learned advocate Mr. Bharda submitted that deceased had very specifically excludes her husband and parents-in-law stating that they were not at fault and that only because of harassment of Jayanti Talati she has burned herself. The statement recorded by P.W.8 - Head Constable would suggest that accused Jayanti Narottam, his wife Gunvantiben, sons - Khodidas, Mehul and Ketan, referring to all as four of them, were giving her mental stress and always were creating dispute by calling her on phone. Her husband from morning to evening remains out for business. On that day at about 2 O' Clock in the afternoon all NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined four had mentally harassed her and therefore, she had burned herself by pouring kerosene. 3.5 Advocate Mr. Bharda contended that the trial was against five persons while the statement refers to four, where the names of all five are mentioned in the statement. Mr. Bharda stated that it does not become clear as to who were four out of five mentally harassing deceased. The statement Exh.43, as submitted by learned advocate Mr. Bharda, was immediate on point of time, as according to the witness Head Constable, he had received the 'Wardhi' from Visnagar Civil Hospital informing that Laxmiben Vankar got burned excessively and therefore, on such 'wardhi' he had gone to record the statement. Mr. Bharda submitted that statement (Exh.43) does not bear endorsement of the Doctor, and Head Constable also did not deem it fit to record the statement with the endorsement of the Doctor. It is contended by learned advocate Mr. Bharda that NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined the statement Exh.43 has to be considered as the F.I.R., and the complaint produced by the husband of deceased as Exh.36, would become a statement of deceased to the I.O.

9. Exh.43 statement recorded by the witness P.W.8 - Harshadkumar Gnabhai, Head Constable, only records that in the afternoon at 2 O' clock, four of them had mentally harassed deceased and therefore, she poured kerosene on her body, while the statement does not refer to the utterance, which the husband (P.W.6) had stated in his deposition. The statement Exh.43 refers to the mental harassment in a continuous form through telephone. Had there been such telephonic conversation, then the prosecution was required to prove the records. Exh.43 states only of mental harassment. What was the harassment, how and in what manner she was subjected to such NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined mental harassment is not brought by the statement of deceased on record by Exh.43.

9.2 The dying declaration, as recorded by P.W.5 though would say that the injured was conscious and in a fit state of mind at the time of recording of the dying declaration. However, it has also been brought on record that deceased could not have read the dying declaration, as she also had burn injuries on the eyes, but the fact remains that Executive Magistrate after ensuring from the Doctor had recorded the statement. Even if the dying declaration is taken into consideration for analysing the evidence on record to consider the case of any instigation, NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined then the incident of that day does not get proved. The deceased had not given specific details of that day, to allege that on the day of incident accused Gunvantiben and her sons had harassed her. The only general statement in the dying declaration is that all the accused have mentally harassed her and therefore, she had injured herself on the forehead and self emulated.