STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MODI KANAIYALAL MULCHANDDAS
LAWS(GJH)-2022-12-1348
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on
December 14,2022
STATE OF GUJARAT
Appellant
VERSUS
Modi Kanaiyalal Mulchanddas
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
TULSIRAM KANU VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]BALBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
M G AGARWAL M K KULKARNI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KHEDU MOHTON VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
KALI RAM VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BALAK RAM MOHD SAYEED KHAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHOO MISSIR SARABJITCHAMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SAMBASIVAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
KALYAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RAM NIWAS [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
K PREMA S RAO VS. YADLA SRINIVASA RAO [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRA PRATAP VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BUDH SINGH VS. STATE OF UP [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. SANJAY THAKRAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM VEER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
S RAMA KRISHNA VS. S RAMI REDDY [REFERRED TO]
GHUREY LAL VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. BANNE ALIAS BAIJNATH [REFERRED TO]
PERLA SOMASEKHARA REDDY VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. NARESH ALIAS RAM NARESH [REFERRED TO]
DHANAPAL VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
ARULVELU VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH ALIAS CHHAJU VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
G V SIDDARAMESH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
BABU VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
BHAIYAMIYAN ALIAS JARDAR KHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIR KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MANGAT RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
MALLIKARJUN KODAGALI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
RAJENDRA M.SAREEN,J. -
(1.)Present appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 challenging the judgment and order dtd. 19/9/1994, passed in Sessions Case No. 168 of 1991 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana, recording the acquittal.
(2.)Brief facts are that complainant - Kamalaben wife of Rasiklal Ambalal (hereinafter shall be referred to as the complainant) lodged the complaint stating that she is residing at Ahmedabad with her family and she has four children, out of which, marriage of her elder daughter - Saroj was performed on 3/2/1991 as per their rites and rituals with Girishkumar Kanaiyalal Modi - respondent No.3 herein. After the marriage, Saroj had gone to her matrimonial house and stayed there for 25 days and thereafter she came back to her parental house. After coming to her parental house, deceased informed the complainant that she will not go to her matrimonial house, since her mother-in-law Taraben, father- in-law Kanaiyalal and sister-in-law Manishaben, all three were taunting her time and again about sufficient dowry not given by her parents. She further informed the complainant that on the aspect of dowry, they used to quarrel with the deceased and torturing her physically and mentally. The deceased has also informed the complainant that her in-laws are instigating her husband against her and not permitting her to have physical relation with her husband and compelled her to sleep with them. Complainant had informed the aforesaid facts to her husband. However, complainant and her husband asked the deceased to go back to her matrimonial home and told her that they will talk with her in-laws regarding all such issues. Therefore, deceased went to her matrimonial house on 25/3/1991. However, on 29/3/1991, the complainant received telephonic information through her relative that deceased has burnt and she is taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for treatment. Therefore, the complainant, her husband and other persons have gone to Civil Hospital and found that deceaced sustained burns on her entire body and as she was unconscious, they could not talk with the deceased. At that night, the sister-in-law of the complainant named Lilaben and Vidyaben, who are residing in the neighbourhood of deceased in Mehsana, met the complainant and informed her that mother-in-law of the deceased told them that they do not want deceased and they should kill her.
(3.)Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint against the respondents for the offences punishable under Ss. 304(B) , 306 , 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as 'the IPC ') and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.)Brief facts are that complainant - Kamalaben wife of Rasiklal Ambalal (hereinafter shall be referred to as the complainant) lodged the complaint stating that she is residing at Ahmedabad with her family and she has four children, out of which, marriage of her elder daughter - Saroj was performed on 3/2/1991 as per their rites and rituals with Girishkumar Kanaiyalal Modi - respondent No.3 herein. After the marriage, Saroj had gone to her matrimonial house and stayed there for 25 days and thereafter she came back to her parental house. After coming to her parental house, deceased informed the complainant that she will not go to her matrimonial house, since her mother-in-law Taraben, father- in-law Kanaiyalal and sister-in-law Manishaben, all three were taunting her time and again about sufficient dowry not given by her parents. She further informed the complainant that on the aspect of dowry, they used to quarrel with the deceased and torturing her physically and mentally. The deceased has also informed the complainant that her in-laws are instigating her husband against her and not permitting her to have physical relation with her husband and compelled her to sleep with them. Complainant had informed the aforesaid facts to her husband. However, complainant and her husband asked the deceased to go back to her matrimonial home and told her that they will talk with her in-laws regarding all such issues. Therefore, deceased went to her matrimonial house on 25/3/1991. However, on 29/3/1991, the complainant received telephonic information through her relative that deceased has burnt and she is taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for treatment. Therefore, the complainant, her husband and other persons have gone to Civil Hospital and found that deceaced sustained burns on her entire body and as she was unconscious, they could not talk with the deceased. At that night, the sister-in-law of the complainant named Lilaben and Vidyaben, who are residing in the neighbourhood of deceased in Mehsana, met the complainant and informed her that mother-in-law of the deceased told them that they do not want deceased and they should kill her.
(3.)Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint against the respondents for the offences punishable under Ss. 304(B) , 306 , 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as 'the IPC ') and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.