Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. State has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded on 19.12.1990 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bardoli in Criminal Case No. 1434 of 1988 wherein the accused were tried for offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code,

2. Respondents were prosecuted on a First Information Report being lodged by Nitinbhai PW 2, at Bardoli Police Station being Crime Register No. 70/88. It is disclosed in the FIR that informant Nitinbhai's younger sister Pragna @ Gita, aged about 19 years married Ashwinbhai, respondent No. 2 herein on 20.2.1988, as p,er the customs prevailing in the community. After marriage, she used to reside at Bardoli with her husband and Chandraben, her mother-in-law, while her father-in- law was serving as a Teacher at Batsar and was thus staying away. On 19.3.1988 Pragna, in the company of her mother-in-law came from Bardoli to Bombay where the informant was residing, and she stayed for a day. During her stay, she disclosed to the informant in the presence of his wife, on being questioned, that she was being ill-treated by her husband as well as her mother-in-law. She complained that they were torturing her very frequently on the ground that she has not brought any article in dowry; respondent No. 3, who was ordinarily residing at United States came to India, who also tortured her in the presence of Chandraben. She was asked to bring dowry. i.e., T.V., Tape Recorder, furniture and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and was threatened that she will not be allowed to enter the house if she returned without dowry. She complained to him that she was mentally tired and conveyed not to tell these things to their father because on coming to know, he would be very unhappy; informant pacified Pragna and stated that as the situation improves, the articles as demanded will be given. After staying for a day, she went back to Bardoli in the company of her husband. Respondent No. 3 was also staying at the relevant time at Bardoli with respondents No. 1 and 2.

2.1. The informant has further disclosed in the complaint that on 9.4.1988 he had gone to his native place, Anjar, where on 15.4.1988, his father's sister conveyed on telephone from Bombay that Pragna has expired at Bardoli arid he was asked to reach Bombay immediately. In view of this information, in formantaeached Bombay on 16.4.1988. On reaching home, he was conveyed information that on 14.4.1988 during night hours, for some reasons, a liquid like kerosene was consumed by Pragna and she expired at about 4.30 a.m. in the morning on 15.4.1988. In-laws of Pragna conveyed the news in the morning of 15.4.1988 and they went to Bardoli and after cremation,, they returned to Bombay. It is also stated in the complaint that Hina, daughter of elder sister of informant's father, (i.e. cousin siter) got married before about three months with Satish, son of Nirmalaben, accused No. 3 (aunt of accused No. 1). (Cousin sister of complainant happened to be the wife of cousin brother of accused No. 1). Father of the informant was threatened that if police complaint is filed, Hina will not be accepted in the family and therefore, father did not file any police complaint. However, informant conveyed to his father what Pragna conveyed to him when she last met him at Bombay and it was clear that on account of the fact that demand for dowry was not satisfied, as alleged by the prosecution, she must have been compelled to commit suicide on account of mental torture.

2.2. On the information being lodged with police, police commenced inves- tigation, and filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bardoli for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance, registered the case as Criminal Case No. 1434 of 1988 and issued process. After recording the evidence and hearing the submissions, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused by judgment and order dated 19.12.1990.

18. In view of the aforesaid position, Mr. Patel, learned Advocate requested the Court not to discuss the matter on merits for considering the case whether the acquittal is proper or not as the findings or observations made by this Court may adversely effect either the prosecution or the accused.

19. Under the circumstances, without discussing the matter on merits as requested by the learned Advocates, the order of acquittal is quashed and set aside. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bardoli is directed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the case is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions.