Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 113a in State Of Gujarat vs Lakhamanbhai Premajibhai on 28 November, 2024Matching Fragments
4. On the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence and the material placed before the trial court, learned APP Ms.Jyoti Bhatt has tried to canvas and contend before this Court that, the trial court has committed a serious error of law NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/274/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2024 undefined and on facts while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and completely over-looked the evidence produced by the prosecution while recording reasons and has not properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses in its true and proper spirit and thus, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is erroneous, illegal and unjust and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the trial court while recording the reasons has not properly described the evidence of the witnesses and has committed a serious error while appreciating the evidence of those witnesses who had supported the case of the prosecution. She has submitted that the deceased died within a short span of marriage life of five months and therefore, the trial court ought to have drawn the inference under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, however, the trial court has failed to refer the provisions of law and failed to discuss the said facts while recording the reasons and therefore, under such circumstances, the evidence led by the prosecution was completely over-looked and ignored by the trial court and thus, the findings recorded by the trial court while acquitting the respondent accused is completely erroneous, illegal and unjust. She has further submitted that NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/274/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2024 undefined though there was specific evidence of the witness with regard to demand of dowry, on account of which, there was ill treatment and cruelty meted out to the deceased, however, the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of that witness in its true and proper spirit while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. She has submitted that in fact, the trial court has ignored the evidence of the witnesses on the ground that there are serious and material contradictions proved from the evidence of the witnesses viz. mother and sister of the deceased and therefore, under such circumstances, it is highly unsafe to record the conviction by relying upon such evidence and therefore, the trial court has disbelieved the depositions of the mother being informant and sister of the deceased who had deposed before the trial court. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, learned APP Ms.Bhatt has submitted that the judgment of acquittal based on the reasons stated in the impugned judgment is absolutely erroneous, illegal and unjust and therefore, she has urged that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court be quashed and set aside.
[9] AIR 1995 SC page-135 Jaggasingh v/s. State of Punjab;
[10] 1988 (1) GLH (U.J.) 22 page-30 State of Gujarat v/s.
Harsing Mansukh Bhil.
5.5 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Khandheria has referred and relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of (1) Fedrick Cutinha vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL SC 70816; (2) Mallappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL SC 73129 and (3) Mohan alias Srinivas vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 1184. He has further submitted that even if the case of prosecution that deceased committed suicide due to mental pressure meted out to her for demand of dowry and therefore she committed suicide is concerned, it is submitted that there is no charge of dowry and mere demand of money from wife or her parents would not constitute cruelty or harassment and in absence of any evidence of cruelty or harassment, accused cannot be held guilty for offence under section 306 of IPC by raising presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. In this regard, it is apposite to rely upon the decision of Hon'ble NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/274/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2024 undefined Supreme Court in the case Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL SC 73286. In the case on hand, as submitted above, evidence of none of the witnesses disclosed any form of incessant cruelty or harassment on the part of husband which would in ordinary circumstances drag the wife to commit suicide. He has further submitted that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence and mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting commission of suicide and mere fact that deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, presumption under Section 113A would not automatically apply and therefore, the learned Judge has rightly recorded acquittal in favor of the present respondents accused, which do not call for any interference by this Court. It was further submitted that this Court in the case of Rameshchandra C. Soni and Others vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2001(0) AIJEL HC 210265 has held that, it is but natural that since dear one of witnesses has met with an unnatural death, they would hold the accused responsible for the death and a feeling of revenge would prompt them to give exaggerated version and to make even false allegations NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/274/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2024 undefined against the accused to see that they are penalised by the Court. At the cost of repetition, it was submitted by learned advocate Mr.Khandheria that respondent Nos.1 and 4 have expired and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are now aged more than 60 years and suffering from various age related ailments and therefore also, even on the humanitarian ground, impugned judgment may not be interfered with and therefore, urged that the present appeal be rejected and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court be confirmed.
6.1 I have thoroughly examined the records of the trial court and I have also gone through the depositions of the witnesses and also considered the oral as well as documentary evidence recorded by the trial court. It is an undisputed fact that the marriage span of the deceased Vanitaben and the respondent No.2 was only of five months and she was only aged 22 years when she had committed suicide. But, unfortunately, herein the present case, no proper investigation was carried out by the Investigating Agency and the witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution to the extent to arraign the respondents accused for the alleged offence under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of IPC. As submitted by learned advocate Mr.Khandheria that all the witnesses upon whom the prosecution has sought to rely upon its case, have given absolutely contradictory depositions and each and every witness has narrated a new story before the trial court and there is not a single independent witness brought on record for appreciation of the present case and even none of the NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/274/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2024 undefined witnesses have seen the incident and the chain of circumstances is not fulfilled. Therefore, after considering all these aspects, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order while considering the provisions of Section 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC and 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which are reproduced hereunder :
"14. Though it is true that as per Section 113A of the Evidence Act, when the question arises as to whether commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband, and when it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court can presume, having regard to the other circumstances, that such suicide has been abetted by her husband NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/274/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2024 undefined or such relative of her husband. However, mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to hold the accused guilty of Section 306 IPC.