The case of the Prosecution is that the marriage between Truptiben the deceased and the appellant No.3 herein took place on 01.05.1996.
The evidence led by the companyplainant PW 1 , the elder sister PW 8 and the grandfather of the deceased PW 9 gets support from the evidence led by PW 7 who are the friend and relatives of the deceased.
the appellants surrendered themselves at the Morbi City Police Station.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court.
The High Court in the present matter upheld the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court by stating that the evidence led by the companyplainant PW 1 , the elder sister of the deceased PW 8 and the grandfather of the deceased PW 9 gets support from the evidence led by PW 7, who are the friends and relatives of the deceased.
Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime.
Kantilal Dhanjibhai Karia informed about the said telephonic message to his nearest relatives and thereafter, they all proceeded towards Morbi.
On the same day, i.e on 23.03.2000, in the evening hours, a criminal companyplaint with regard to the said incident was filed by the father of the deceased against the appellants, which ultimately, came to be registered as I C.R No.
After the registration of the companyplaint against the appellants, an arrest warrant was issued by the companycerned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Morbi on report filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 70 Cr.
The body of the deceased was taken off the fan and sent for post mortem examination.
Out of the said wedlock, a girl named Gopi was born.
The investigation was carried out and the statements of several witnesses were recorded.
The ASI went to the scene of the offence and carried out preliminary investigation.
Thereafter, investigation into the said incident was taken over by Police Inspector Mr. Jaynarayan Rameshwar Srivastav.
P.C, it did number want to enter into the other aspect of the case and instead focus on the present appeal.
92/2000 for offence punishable under Sections 498 A, 304 B 306 read with Section 114 of the IPC.
P.C, but the appellants were untraceable.
The said Kantilal Dhanjibhai Karia, the father of the deceased arrived at 1500 Hrs on the same day.
This evidence was supported by PW 7, the friend of the deceased who stated that the deceased had informed her that she was subject to frequent mental torture and harassment by the accused for bringing less dowry.
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.7, Morbi in Sessions Case No.52/2000 and the trial was held.
On 23.03.2000 at around 1130 Hrs, while Kantilal Dhanjibhai Karia was discharging his duties in the Bank of Baroda at Rajkot, he received a telephonic message from Appellant No.1, that his daughter is hanging by the fan and that he may immediately companye to Morbi.
After the marriage, Truptiben was residing in a joint family with her in laws appellant Nos.1 and 2 and her husband appellant No.3 at Morbi, Gujarat.
The High Court further opined out that the evidence of PW 1, PW 7, PW 8 and PW 9 clearly establishes that the appellants were greedy people, who had started to demand dowry right from the date of marriage i.e on 01.05.1996.
In the meantime, Appellant No.1 had informed about the said incident to Morbi City Police Station.
This witness was also cross examined at length by the other side alike the other witnesses and based on the evidence provided by the witnesses, the accused were companyvicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B 306 IPC read with Section 114 IPC.
The witnesses PW 1 , PW 8 and PW 9 stated that the deceased used to companyplain about the mental torture and harassment frequently meted out to her by the accused due to the insufficient dowry provided during the marriage.
The P.S.O, who was on duty at the relevant time, made the relevant entry in the Station Register and directed the ASI to investigate the matter.
Truptiben was the daughter of one Kantilal Dhanjibhai Karia of District Rajkot in Gujarat.
They were absconding for a period of thirty six days and ultimately on 29.04.2000 at around 2130 Hrs.,
During the trial, the witnesses were examined at length.
He recorded the statement of Appellant No.1 and thereafter, sent a yaadi to the S.O to register the incident as an accidental death, which came to be registered as A.D. No.16/2000.
The High Court thus upheld the ultimate companyclusion and the resultant order of companyviction recorded by the Trial Court.
The appellants were produced in the companyrt of the District Addl.
He felt something fishy behind the death of her daughter Truptiben, as the appellants had demanded dowry several times in the past, which was further strengthened by the fact that numbere of the appellants were present in the house at the relevant point of time.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. This criminal appeal, by special leave, is directed against the impugned companymon judgment dated June 17, 2009 of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No.1327 of 2004 filed by the appellants and companyfirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.
The Investigating Officer informed Kantilal Dhanjibhai Karia, the father of the deceased, of the said incident and in return he asked the Investigating Officer number to disturb the position of the dead body of his daughter till he arrives at Morbi.
