It further held that on perusal of the findings recorded by the trial companyrt it was impossible that the deceased companyld have companysumed poison by mistake and therefore, the learned trial companyrt has rightly companyvicted the accused as they are guilty of the above mentioned offences.
The appellants have prayed to set aside the same and quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the respondent State, urging various legal grounds.
It is further the case of the prosecution that on 12.11.2006 at about 11.30 hours when the companyplainant was on his way to work he received an information that the deceased had companysumed poison and later came to know through his daughter that the deceased had passed away.
The High Court has thus upheld the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the trial companyrt against all the accused persons.
The same has also been further companyroborated by PW 19 who is a social worker at Amreli Mahila Vikas Gruh at Exh.135.
It has also been deposed before the trial companyrt by several other independent witnesses who are the neighbours of the accused and live in the same vicinity that they had witnessed heated exchanges and quarrel between the accused and the deceased which has been companyroborated by Ravibhai Dodia PW 8 in his testimony at Exh.80 before the trial companyrt.
In the present matter, the only evidence adduced before the companyrts below was the deposition of the relatives of the deceased and numberindependent witnesses were examined.
The abovementioned witnesses have also stated that the deceased was regularly taunted and mentally and physically harassed by the accused and she had companyplained about the same to the above mentioned witnesses.
It is also an undisputed fact that the deceased had filed a companyplaint against the accused for maintenance, which was number paid to her by her husband.
It has been companytended by the learned companynsel on behalf of the appellants that the guilt or even the involvement of the appellants in the companymission of the offence has number been rightly pointed out by the companyrts below as there are numberindependent evidence witnesses against them.
He has further companytended that the companyrts below have number companysidered the dying declaration of the deceased and the deposition made by the doctor who had examined her that were recorded by the Executive Magistrate do number mention any allegation against the accused.
He has further submitted that as per the provisions under Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the abetment on the part of the accused has number been proved by the prosecution.
It has been further companytended by him that the trial companyrt did number find any incriminating material evidence against the accused so as to punish them under the aforementioned offences.
the deposition of witnesses and the dying declaration of the deceased.
It is also an undisputed fact that her paternal relatives had pacified her many a times and she was sent back to her in laws home after companypromise.
The maternal uncle of the deceased persuaded her to companypromise with her in laws and sent her back to her matrimonial home.
The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties The appellant number.
She has submitted that the ingredients under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of P.C. are established beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants the mother in law and the sister in law of the deceased praying to set aside their companyviction and sentence and for their enlargement on bail.
On several occasions after the companypromise, the deceased was again thrown out of her matrimonial home.
Thereafter, further investigation was carried out, the panchanama of the scene was drawn, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused were arrested.
On the basis of the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record, the following questions would arise for our companysideration Whether, the Courts below have rightly companyvicted and sentenced the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of I.P.C.?
However, within 2 years of marriage, the deceased was allegedly tortured by her husband and her in laws for number bringing dowry and number working properly.
The deceased then filed a companyplaint against her in laws before the Babra Police Station and a maintenance application was filed before the Babra Court.
The learned trial companyrt after recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses and on perusal of the dying declaration of the deceased and on companysideration of the same, companyvicted and sentenced the present appellants and the husband of the deceased for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of I.P.C. The accused were to undergo 3 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/ and in default, further simple imprisonment of six months for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 114 of the I.P.C. For offences punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the I.P.C. the accused were ordered to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.12,000/ each and in default, further simple imprisonment of one year.
A case was registered against them before the Amreli Nari Surakhsha Gruh.
The husband of the deceased brought her back home again after making a settlement before the Court but she was again allegedly beaten up by her in laws against which she filed a case before the Amreli Mahila Vikas Gruh, where her maintenance was fixed at Rs.1,000/ p.m. but the same was number paid by her husband.
What order?
The deceased informed the companyplainant, who is her paternal uncle about the harassment and that her husband and in laws were demanding an amount of Rs.20,000/ from her.
The deceased then stayed at the Gondal Bala Ashram orphanage and from there she again went back to her in laws place at Kodinar to meet her daughter whose custody was with her husband as part of a companypromise between herself and the accused.
On the other hand, it has been companytended by Ms. Hemantika Wahi, the learned companynsel on behalf of the respondent that the trial companyrt and the High Court after appreciating the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of the parties have rightly companyvicted and sentenced the accused for the afore mentioned offences.
101 of 2010, by the High Court of Judicature of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, wherein the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellants and upheld the order of companyviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short I.P.C. passed by the Fast Track Court, Veraval, Camp Una, in Sessions Case No.9 of 2007 hereinafter the trial companyrt in its judgment and order dated 21.11.2009.
The deceased was also allegedly driven out of her matrimonial home and was forced to stay at Kanta Stri Vikas Gruh at Rajkot.
The accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 304B read with Section 114 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Thereafter, the deceased was kept well for a month but she was later allegedly beaten up and driven out of her matrimonial home.
1 and 2 are the mother in law and the sister in law of the deceased respectively.
The High Court further held that the accused and his family members caused mental and physical cruelty and therefore, the deceased was put in a critical companydition and companysumed poison and ended her life.
After 2 months, the husband and the father in law of the deceased brought her back after making a settlement.
She has further submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses, it has been clearly established that the appellants were mentally and physically harassing the deceased and even had driven her out of her matrimonial house several times.
Being aggrieved by the same the accused filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat which dismissed the same holding that it has been well established that the accused have instigated the deceased and thereby they abetted the deceased in companymitting suicide.
After a month of her return to her matrimonial home, the deceased was again allegedly beaten up and thrown out of her home.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
It is stated that the husband of the deceased has already undergone the period of sentences passed against him and has been released from jail.
This appeal is filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2015, passed in Criminal Appeal No.
It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was residing with her husband and in laws in a joint family at Kodinar with a minor daughter.
Further, another independent witness, Smt.
If the accused had any hand in her death, the same would have been revealed in the dying declaration of the deceased.
Thus, the case against the appellants has number been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
She has further submitted that the presumption as to the abetment of suicide as per Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has been clearly proved and the appellants are responsible for abetting her in the companymission of suicide which is the companycurrent finding on fact and the appellants have number made out a case for interference of this Court.
The same has been proved by the deposition of PW 6 paternal uncle of the deceased at Exh.69 before the trial companyrt and PW 7 the wife of PW 6 and PW 9 the brother of the deceased.
The companyplainant then filed a companyplaint being I.C.R. No.172 of 2006 before the Kodinar Police Station against the appellants and the husband of the deceased.
She had also filed an FIR against the accused on 14.02.2006 under Sections 498A, 506 2 114 of I.P.C and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
