K.S. Jhaveri, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant - State and learned Advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakore for the respondents No. 1 - 3.
(2.) BY way of this Appeal, the Appellant - State has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.02.2006 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 112/2002 whereby the respondents herein were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case in brief is as under: - 3.1. The respondent No. 1 is the husband of the deceased, the respondent No. 2 is the father -in -law of the deceased and the respondent No. 3 is the mother -in -law of the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Meena suffered burn injuries on 31.05.1998. Entry No. 15/1998 was registered before Jagadia Police Station. Since Meena sustained 70% burn injuries, she was admitted in the hospital for plastic surgery at Baroda in the hospital of Dr. Umesh J. Shah, where she had give a history that she received these burns while starting the kerosene stove and at that time, she had put on a polyster dress. On 16.06.1998, when Dr. Umesh J. Shah was on his rounds at the hospital, Meena requested the Doctor for changing the statement. Accordingly, Dr. Umesh J. Shah informed Jagadia Police Station and wrote a letter to Police Incharge. The police personnel reached the hospital, the learned Executive Magistrate was called and her Dying Declaration was recorded. On 20.06.1998, Meena succumbed to her injuries. When the police came to know about the death of Meena, Jagadia police investigated the case and filed a 'B' Summary. 3.2. Thereafter on 27.07.1998, the uncle of Meena - Zaverbhai Kalidas Patel filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jagadia for the offences punishable under Section 307, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code stating that his elder brother had died about 20 years prior to the date of the incident. His sister -in -law and four daughters were living in a joint family. The eldest brother of the complainant had arranged marriages of all the above children. The respondent No. 1 had married Meena about three years prior to the date of incident. It is alleged that on the day of marriage, the respondents had demanded dowry and they were not satisfied with the articles given to Meena. It is alleged that the respondents had given threats to immediately provide sufficient dowry, failing which Meena would be returned back. The complainant under these circumstances was compelled to bring the various articles related to dowry. 3.3. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 31.05.1998, one - Rashmiben gave a telephonic message to the sister of Meena, i.e. Ritaben stating Meena had received burns and was admitted to the hospital. Hence, the complainant, brother of the victim and others went to Jagadia, where they received the information that Meena was shifted to Bharuch. Meena could not be located by the entire party and hence, they rushed to Karjan, where they received information that Meena was admitted in Amrish Hospital which serious burn injuries. The next day, the doctors informed that the in -laws of Meena had caused this injury. Hence, the complaint in this respect was lodged. On completion of the investigation, the charge -sheet was filed. The respondents faced trial and it was a case of total denial. 3.4. At the time of the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: - The prosecution also relied upon various documentary evidence, some of them are: - 3.5. At the end of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge passed the order as above.
(3.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah has submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that the deceased Meena was subjected to mental and physical harassment because of the insufficient dowry given by the complainant. Besides, the respondent No. 1 was suspecting the character of his deceased wife. It is further submitted that the post mortem report supports the case of the prosecution wherein it is stated that the death of the deceased had occurred because of the burn injuries. Further, Exhibit 38 of the medical officer who had given treatment to Meena states that she was brought in a burnt condition. The learned Judge ought to have appreciated the dying declaration of Meena and also that on the day of marriage, there was allegedly a constant demand for dowry by the present respondents. Considering the above, it is submitted that this is a fit case which requires interference of this Court and the judgment and order of the learned Judge be upturned.;