State of Gujarat vs Sumanbhai Ramanbhai Ghodiya Patel

Abhilasha Kumari, J.—The challenge in this appeal filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat is to the judgment and order dated 21.10.2002, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Navsari, in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2002, whereby the respondent-original accused, has been acquitted of the charges under Sections- 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.02.2002, at 13:00 hours, Bhaniben, wife of the respondent committed suicide by hanging herself from a pipe in the bathroom of her house, allegedly due to the harassment and torture inflicted upon her by him.

The complainant, Dimple, is the daughter of deceased Bhaniben, from her first marriage. The complaint was filed on 24.02.2002, at Vansda Police Station, and was registered as C.R. No. I-18/2002. As per the complaint, the deceased, who was serving as a Teacher in a Primary School, was earlier married to one Navinbhai Ramjibhai Patel. When the complainant Dimple and her brother Divyesh were studying in a Primary School, their father Navinbhai, died due to a heart-attack. Her mother Bhaniben came to live at her parental house at Kantsavel. When the complainant and her brother were in Standard 5th and 4th respectively, their mother married the respondent, who resided in Village Kantsavel. The deceased was working as a Teacher in the Primary School there, and was later transferred to Vansda, where they lived in a rented house. It is the case of the prosecution, based upon the complaint, that the respondent made the deceased withdraw money from the General Provident Fund by misleading her and also made her withdrew money from "the Society". Due to this, there were quarrels between the deceased and the respondent. When the deceased asked for accounts, the respondent got angry and beat the deceased. It is further alleged that the respondent used to forcibly take away the salary of the deceased and when the deceased asked him for money to pay the Tuition Fees of her children, the respondent would get angry. It is further stated that the respondent had sold off a Rajdoot Motorcycle belonging to the father of the complainant, and had spent the money. He had also taken an amount of Rs. 30,000/- from one Dhanuben Chhibabhai Patel. Further, he sold off a shop belonging to the deceased. It is further alleged that the respondent never gave the deceased accounts for any of these transactions. He did not let the deceased talk to any person or maintain relations with her relatives. It is stated in the complaint that the respondent used to beat the deceased, but she used to bear the beatings patiently. The respondent used to inflict unbearable torture upon the deceased and did not let her go to meet the complainant, who studied in the PTC College, at Junagadh. It is further alleged that the respondent did not pay her Tuition Fees and also used to beat the complainant. Due to the ill-treatment meted out by the respondent, her brother, Divyesh, had gone to stay with their uncle since the past three months. It is further stated that Hetalben, a friend of the complainant, received a telephone call in the afternoon, informing her that there had been a quarrel between the deceased and the respondent and the complainant should come to Vansda. The complainant, accompanied by her friend Hetalben, went to Vansda where she was informed that her mother, Bhaniben, had committed suicide by hanging herself. It is stated in the complaint that the reason for the suicide of the deceased was the unbearable torture inflicted upon her by the respondent.

Upon registration of the complaint, the investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses were recorded. An inquest was held on the dead body of Bhaniben, which was then sent for autopsy. The Panchnama of the scene of offence was prepared. At the end of the investigation, as sufficient incriminating evidence was found against the accused, he came to be charge-sheeted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vansda. As the offence under Section-306 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the Sessions Court. A charge was framed against the accused at Exhibit-1, which was read over and explained to him. The accused denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced.

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and produced documentary evidence. After the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Trial Judge explained to the accused the statements appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section- 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, was recorded. He denied the charge and stated that a false case had been thrust upon him, as he had entered into a love marriage with deceased Bhaniben, against the wishes of her family members.

After appreciating and evaluating the evidence on record, the Trial Court recorded a finding of acquittal, having come to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence on record to prove that the deceased committed suicide as a result of the cruel treatment meted out to her by the respondent, giving rise to the filing of the present appeal.

Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error in not appreciating the evidence on record in a proper manner. It is submitted that PW-2 has clearly deposed that the respondent used to cause incessant and unbearable harassment to the deceased and had sold off her property and taken the proceeds. He did not even give the deceased money to pay the Tuition Fees of her children. It is submitted that the deposition of PW-2 is sufficient to show that the deceased was facing unbearable harassment from the respondent, which is the reason for her suicide. It is further submitted that the fact that the respondent sold the property of the deceased is supported by the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who has recorded the statement of the person who has purchased the house. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further relied upon the deposition of PW-5 Divyesh, son of the deceased who has reiterated that the respondent used to harass his mother. It is further pointed out by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that PW-8 Madhuben, has submitted in her deposition that the accused had spoken to her on telephone on the date of the incident, on 23.02.2002, after 1:00 p.m. and before 2:00 p.m., but had not mentioned anything regarding the death of the deceased. This shows that he was trying to hide something. It is further submitted that PW-9 Kantaben, has also stated that the deceased talked with her on telephone on the day of the incident and informed her that the respondent was ill-treating her son Divyesh and beating her. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that as the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper manner, it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that the judgment and order rendered by the Trial Court is perverse and illegal, therefore, it may be quashed and set aside and the appeal allowed.

The respondent has been served but has not chosen to appear before this Court.

Having heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and upon perusal of the record and proceedings of the case, at this juncture, it would be expedient to briefly summarize the salient and vital features of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the other evidence on record.

PW-2 Dimple, is the daughter of the deceased from her first husband. She has been examined at Exhibit-10. She states that initially, after the marriage of her mother Bhaniben to the respondent, he used to treat her properly. Thereafter, the respondent started withdrawing money belonging to the deceased and harassing her for money. He even took away the salary of the deceased and sold the motorcycle belonging to the father of this witness. According to this witness, the respondent did not permit the deceased to go to Junagadh to meet her. This witness claims that her mother has committed suicide due to the harassment meted out by the respondent.

In cross-examination, this witness states that she had gone to study at the PTC College at Junagadh about seven months before the incident. She admits that at the time of her admission, the respondent had come to Junagadh to make the arrangements. She further states that her maternal uncle Thakorbhai, and her other uncle Babubhai (Masi''s husband), had not liked the fact that the deceased had a love marriage with the respondent, and were opposing her. This witness further states that the relatives and family members of the deceased had broken off relations with her, due to her marriage with the respondent. The deceased did not go to the house of her relatives and neither did they come to her house. This witness further states that the deceased had filed civil proceedings regarding a property dispute against her maternal uncle Thakorbhai and other uncle Babubhai, at the Vansda Court. She adds that these proceedings were filed by the deceased at the behest of the respondent. This witness has further stated that the family members and relatives of the deceased did not take custody of the dead body of the deceased, which was handed over to the respondent. According to this witness, she has no knowledge whether the deceased and respondent were to come to Junagadh to meet her, on the day of the incident. She further states that the respondent used to beat the deceased with a stick. This witness states that when the deceased committed suicide, the respondent was not at home. She then adds that she does not know anything about it. This witness states that the respondent used to frequently beat the deceased but she cannot say how many times he had beaten her.

PW-5 Divyesh, is a son of the deceased by her first marriage. He reiterates the version that the deceased was harassed for money by the respondent and that the respondent used to beat her frequently. He states that the reason for the suicide of the deceased was the ill-treatment and beatings by the respondent. He further states that the respondent used to harass him, as well, and had beaten the deceased in his presence. This witness insinuates that the respondent had illicit relations with a lady named Parvati.

This witness categorically states in cross-examination, that he has no affection for the respondent. He further states that about two to three months before the incident, he had gone to live with his uncle. He denies the suggestion that he had gone to live with his uncle due to the scolding given to him by the deceased, regarding his bad habits. From the evidence of PW-2 and this witness, it transpires that there was some litigation between the deceased and her brother and brother-in-law, regarding property.

PW-6 Parvatiben is a neighbour of the deceased, and has been examined at Exhibit-19. She states that on the day of the incident, it was ''Bakre EID'' and a public holiday. Her husband, who is a Contractor, was not at home on that day. This witness states that at about 11:00 a.m. when she was putting out the clothes to dry in the balcony, she saw Bhaniben coming out of the house and putting out washed clothes to dry. Thereafter, this witness went back into her house and Bhaniben went into her own house. This witness states that as her son was not feeling well, she was sleeping in the house with him. At about One O''clock in the afternoon, the respondent shouted from outside, asking whether Bhaniben was at her place. She replied that she did not know where Bhaniben is. This witness states that the respondent again called her from the back door and said that she should go and check whether there is a lock on the front door of his house, or not. This witness states that she went to the front door of the house of the deceased and saw that there was no lock on the door. On pushing the door, it opened. This witness started calling out to Bhaniben. When she went upto the bathroom, she saw Bhaniben hanging by a Saree from a pipe, in the space near the bathroom. This witness states that she ran out of the house and told the respondent to call somebody. This witness states that she went to the nearby Press and called the people working there, and then went home. Thereafter, she does not know what transpired. This witness further states that PW-2 Dimple, had told her that the respondent used to torture and ill-treat the deceased and it is for this reason that she has committed suicide.

In her cross-examination, this witness categorically states that the respondent and the deceased used to live together normally and peacefully.

PW-7 Dhanuben Amrutbhai Patel, is a cousin of the deceased who has been examined at Exhibit-20. She states that the deceased was not only her cousin sister but also her friend and they used to share their joys and sorrows. She further states that the deceased had told her that the respondent was harassing her for money and she does not have money to even educate her children. According to this witness, the deceased asked her for financial help and had taken a loan of Rs. 30,000/- from her. She had given this amount to the deceased for the Tuition Fees of her children, about four years before the incident. She states that the money was never returned to her by the deceased. This witness further states that PW-2, daughter of the deceased, had told her that the deceased had committed suicide due to harassment by the respondent.

In her cross-examination, this witness states that as deceased is her cousin sister, she has feelings for her.

PW-8 Madhuben Ramjibhai is one of the sisters of the deceased, who has been examined at Exhibit-21. This witness states that the deceased used to talk to her regarding the harassment caused by the respondent, for financial reasons. She states that the respondent used to harass the children of the deceased as well. This witness states that on 21.02.2012, the deceased had telephoned her at about 8:00 p.m. and told her that the respondent was harassing her and had spoiled the lives of her children. According to this witness, the deceased had told her that the respondent had spoiled the future of her son Divyesh. This witness asked the deceased whether she had any problem, but the deceased replied in the negative. According to this witness, on 23.02.2002 (the day of the incident) after 1:00 p.m. and before 2:00 p.m., the respondent had telephoned her and talked to her about various social issues. This witness told the respondent that she wanted to speak to the deceased, upon which he is stated to have said that the deceased is under tension due to Divyesh, and that they are both going to Junagadh, to meet PW-2. Thereafter, the husband of this witness talked to the respondent and the respondent is stated to have said that they were going to Junagadh. On 24.02.2002, this witness was informed by telephone that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. She states that, it appears to her that the respondent was inflicting physical and mental torture upon the deceased, who had committed suicide for this reason.

In cross-examination, this witness states that deceased Bhaniben was ten years older to the respondent, and they had had a love marriage. She states that she used to meet the deceased on occasions and denies the suggestion that the relatives of the deceased did not maintain relations with her. She states that on 23.02.2002, she spoke to the respondent on the telephone for forty five minutes.

PW-9 Kantaben Shankarbhai, is also one of the sisters of the deceased, and has been examined at Exhibit-22. She states that the deceased faced torture in her married life, which was disclosed to her by the deceased herself. The deceased did not disclose much to her but there was harassment from the respondent, for money. She states that the deceased had told her that the respondent used to frequently beat her. She further states that at about 8:30 a.m. on 23.02.2002, the deceased telephoned this witness and said that Divyesh had gone away from the house a month ago, due to harassment from the respondent, who used to beat him. This witness further states that about eight months before the incident, Divyesh had come to her house and told her that the respondent used to beat and harass him and he did not want to live. Thereafter, the respondent had telephoned her and asked her to tell Divyesh to come home but Divyesh did not want to go home. She further states that she had told the deceased to persuade Divyesh and take him home.

In her cross-examination, she states that she is involved in the liquor business and Divyesh was living with her. She further states that her relatives and family members did not like the second marriage of the deceased with the respondent, but she does not know whether her family members used to keep relations with the deceased, or not. She states ''that the deceased was under tension, as Divyesh had gone to stay at his uncle''s house.

PW-10 Amratbhai Hirabhai Chaudhari is the Investigating Officer, who has been examined at Exhibit-23. Apart from stating that he has recorded the statements of witnesses, it appears from his cross-examination that certain prosecution witnesses have made improvements and embellishments in their testimonies before the Court, over and above what was stated by them before the Police. He narrates this in detail.

That the deceased died a suicidal death by hanging, is not in dispute. PW-1 Dr. Dipakbhai Maheshbhai Sinhal has deposed that he has conducted the postmortem of the deceased and her death was caused due to Cardio-respiratory failure (Asphyxia) caused by hanging.

PW-3 Ishvarbhai Naginbhai Patel is one of the panch witnesses of the Panchnama of the scene of offence, which is at Exhibit-16. This witness does not support the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. PW-4 Mohanbhai Khalpabhai is also one of the panch witnesses who has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. He states that they never went into the house of the deceased and that he had signed on a paper, prepared by the Police.

The evidence, as above, if examined and reappreciated independently, would go to show that the prosecution witnesses have not narrated a single incident of beating, harassment or torture alleged to have been inflicted by the respondent on the deceased. Even though PW-2 and PW-5 are children of the deceased, no particular incident has been mentioned by them. It has come in evidence and is an admitted position that PW-2 Dimple, daughter of the deceased, had gone to stay at Junagadh about seven months before the incident and PW-5 Divyesh, son of the deceased was living with his uncle since about two to three months before the incident. The allegations narrated by these witnesses regarding beating, torture and harassment are general in nature. It appears from the evidence of PW-5 that he nurtures an element of animosity towards the respondent, as it is stated by him in his deposition that he has no affection for the respondent, who is his step-father. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent was harassing the deceased for money and taking her salary. Apart from general allegations, no specific instance or proof regarding this aspect has been brought on record. Though it is stated by the Investigating Officer that he has recorded the statement of a person who has purchased the property of the deceased, from this alone, it cannot be inferred that the property was forcibly sold by the respondent against the wishes of the deceased and the proceeds were forcibly taken by him. There is no clarity regarding this aspect in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. However, it is clear that litigation regarding some property disputes were going on in the Civil Court at Vansad between the deceased, her brother, and her brother-in-law. It has been insinuated by PW-5 in his deposition that the respondent had illicit relations with a lady named Parvati. However, from this it cannot be inferred that PW-6 Parvatiben, is the lady who is being referred to by PW-5. Again, there is no clarity whether PW-6 Parvatiben who is a neighbour of the deceased is the lady referred to by PW-5, or it is some other lady by the same name. This angle has not been explored or established by the prosecution.

It has further come in evidence that the respondent had called out to PW-6 from the back door and inquired, whether the deceased was there. He had told her to check the front door to ascertain whether it was locked. PW-6 had then gone to check whether the front door of the respondent''s house was locked, or not. She entered the house of the respondent and saw Bhaniben hanging by a Saree from a pipe in the bathroom. It is not clear why the respondent had asked PW-6 to check the front door, and why he did not do so himself. It is also not clear why the respondent did not open the front door, which was unlocked, by himself. These appear to be serious flaws in the investigation. However, these flaws, by themselves, would not be of any help in proving the charges against the respondent.

It appears from the evidence of PW-8 that the respondent had spoken to her after 1:00 p.m. and before 2:00 p.m. on 23.02.2002, the date of the incident. In the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, it emerges that the respondent was not at home when the incident took place. There is no evidence on record to prove that on the day of the incident, or even a few days before that, any quarrel or unpleasant incident had taken place between the respondent and the deceased, leading her to take the extreme step.

It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, especially that of PW-2 and PW-5, that there was some dispute regarding property between the deceased and her brother and brother-in-law. It also appears that the second marriage of the deceased with the respondent was not liked by her relatives, who did not maintain relations with her. This is stated so by the children of Bhaniben herself. The allegations against the respondent regarding ill-treatment and harassment, are levelled by the complainant and PW-5, who are the children of the deceased by an earlier marriage. They do not appear to be on good terms with the respondent, who is their step-father. The prosecution witnesses who have deposed that the deceased was ill-treated by the respondent for money, have only stated so on the basis of hearsay evidence. Though some of them have stated that the deceased had told them so, it does not appear from their evidence that they have witnessed any such incident of beating or torture given by the respondent to the deceased. All the allegations are general in nature and none of the witnesses have narrated even a single incident. It has come in the evidence of PW-5 that the respondent was not at home when the incident: took place. The respondent spoke to PW-8 and the deceased spoke to PW-9 on the day of the incident but there was no talk of a recent quarrel between them on that day or immediately before that.

For the prosecution to make good the allegations of cruelty within the meaning of Section- 498A of the Indian Penal Code, they would have to establish that the deceased was tortured, harassed and subjected to cruelty, with a view to coerce her to commit suicide or to meet unlawful demands for property. The prosecution has not been successful in proving the ingredients of this offence, from the evidence adduced by it. Insofar as the charge under Section-306 is concerned, it appears from the evidence on record that the prosecution has been unsuccessful in proving that there was some instigation, provocation or goading on the part of the respondent, with a specific intention and mens-rea, to coerce her to take the extreme step of committing suicide. The evidence on record does not reveal that any criminal liability can be fastened upon the respondent regarding the charges levelled against him.

The findings recorded by the Trial Court in this regard are just and proper and are supported by cogent reasons, with which this Court is in agreement. The judgment of the Trial Court, acquitting the respondent, does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity, so as to warrant interference. For the aforestated reasons, the appeal fails, and is rejected.