S.G.Shah, J. - (1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Harshad K. Patel for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. M.B. Parikh for respondent Nos. 2 to 9 and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent - State.
(2.) THE applicant is original complainant, who has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.03.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2008, which was initiated pursuant to Amreli Taluka Police Station II - C.R. No. 12 of 2007 under Section 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The sum and substance of the complaint is to the effect that victim Hansaben, wife of the complainant has committed suicide because of mental and physical cruelty by his relatives, who are respondent Nos. 2 to 9 herein. It is not disputed that marriage span of the victim is more than 7 years and she has four children out of such marriage but on 11.02.2008 she has committed suicide by pouring kerosene and ablaze herself. At that time, complainant has tried to save her, which resulted into several burn injuries to the complainant also, but ultimately victim succumbed to the burn injuries and hence husband has filed complaint against his own uncle and other relatives.
(3.) IF we perused the impugned judgment, the trial Court has categorically recorded the outcome of cross - examination of the complainant himself, wherein complainant has no option but to admit that they have no relation with the family of the accused - respondent and that his marriage was taken place before more than 10 years and probably before 20 years. It is also admitted by him that victim has filed cases against his father and there was dispute between father and son regarding some plot, whereby victim was under impression that she has not get equal share in partition between family members by her father - in - law. It is also admitted position that there was rivalry between the family members because of election of Sarpanch, where one of the accused namely Bhanubhai has won the election of the Sarpanch, whereas family member of the victim and complainant has lost the same. 4.1 Though some incidents were narrated by the complainant regarding some statements made by the accused, prima - facie it becomes clear that provision of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is certainly not attracted in this case because accused are not father - in - law or near relatives of the victim but they are uncle and other family members of the father -in -law of the victim and they are not in good terms from decades together. 4.2 If we perused the impugned judgment, the trial Court has scrutinized the evidence properly and explained the relevant admission by the concerned witnesses, wherein it has become clear that victim was survived after recording first dying declaration and, therefore, it cannot be treated as dying declaration at all and there is material contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and statement by the victim in the dying declaration, in as much as, the victim has stated that nobody was at home when she has tried to suicide, whereas husband has categorically stated that he was at home, such fact is supported by his burn injuries. The trial Court has also recorded several contradictions. The trial Court has also examined the defense at exhibit 42 and 36. The trial Court has also recorded that there is no smell of kerosene. The trial Court has also recorded that there is material contradictions so far as nature of incident and knowledge with discloser of incident is concerned. It is also recorded that doctors were not aware that who has brought the victim to the hospital and on the contrary another doctor says that condition of the victim was good when she was brought to the hospital, but she has not disclosed the name of the accused. The overall reading of evidence makes it clear that only allegations of the victim to the effect that when she was moving in the society, ladies members of the other -side were speaking some improper words. However, there is no relation between the parties from 3 to 4 decades. Moreover, dying declaration does not disclose the name of a person nor the nature of cruelty.;