Maru Nanjibhai Lakhabhai vs State Of Gujarat

The appellants - Nanjibhai Lakhabhai Maru-father-in-law and Samjuben Nanjibhai Maru-mother-in-law of the deceased have challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.08.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.105 of 2000, imposing the sentence of 3 years and 4 years respectively for the offence punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 114 and Section306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

The short fact of the case is that on the day of incident i.e. on 12.03.2000, while the deceased was cooking, at that time, the son of the deceased banged the door and under the influence of anger, the appellants uttered some taunting words to the deceased, due to which, the deceased took extreme step of committing suicide. As a result, the complaint was lodged with the police.

Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was sessions triable, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.1 In order to bring home the charges against the accused, prosecution has examined the witnesses and produced the documentary evidence.

3.2 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them.

3.3 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating evidence on record, the learned Judge vide judgment and order of conviction dated 04.08.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.105 of 2000, the appellants-accused have preferred the present appeal before this Court.

Learned advocate for the appellants has taken this Court through the entire record & proceedings and fairly conceded that two dying declarations are available on record wherein the allegations as regards wear & tear are mentioned. He has also submitted that mitigating circumstances are emerging out from the dying declarations wherein it is clearly mentioned that as the son of the deceased banged the door, under the influence of anger, the appellants uttered some taunting words to the deceased, due to which, the deceased took extreme step of committing suicide, however the exact words were neither mentioned by the deceased nor by any relative. He has also submitted that the the appellants had already crossed the age of 70 years at the time when their further statements under Section 313 was recorded in the year 2003. Consequently therefore, he has requested to alter the sentence by reducing the sentence to already undergone by the appellants.

Per contra, learned APP has taken this Court through the evidence on record and has submitted that the judgment of the learned trial Judge is not such which calls for interference on the facts and the conviction of the accused should not be interfered with. She has submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case. She also submitted that even the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and therefore the impugned judgment may not be interfered with and it may be confirmed.

On going through the record & proceedings, two dying declarations are available on record. Before the Executive Magistrate at Exh.35, the deceased inter alia stated that on 12.03.2000, in the morning hours, while she was cooking, at that time, her son banged the door, due to which, there was a quarrel with the appellants and the appellants picked up the quarrel with her for trivial household affairs, due to which, she poured kerosene over her person and set herself on fire. Further, she positively stated that there was no demand for dowry nor any sort of harassment. Similarly in the complaint before the police, she inter alia stated that she had two children and she got married for about 8 years back. On the day of incident, while she was cooking, her son banged the door, due to which, the appellants picked up the quarrel taunting her and also were saying that why she is not getting died due to which she poured kerosene over her person and set herself on fire. Thereafter, she shouted for help and her husband came and rescued her. She further stated that her other in-laws were not harassing her except the present appellants and that there was no demand for dowry.

Prosecution witness No.5 - Jayaben - sister of the deceased deposed that appellants used to taunt the deceased, however no particulars were given.

7.1 Prosecution witness No.7 - Dahyabhai - father of the deceased deposed that the deceased told him that she had taken the extreme step as there was harassment from the appellants.

7.2 Prosecution witness No.9 - Ratanben - mother of the deceased also stated the same thing which the deceased stated to her father. However, in the cross-examination, she stated that she had never stated before the police that the deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide due to taunting her by the present appellants.

On overall analysis of the evidence on record and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, since the incident occurred for about 19 years back and the present appellants have already crossed the age of about 80 years and on the date of incident, the mitigating circumstances are also emerging out from both the dying declarations that the son of the deceased badged the door, due to which, under the anger, the appellant taunted the deceased as to why she is not getting died due to which she took the extreme step of committing suicide as is revealing from the entire evidence on record. Indisputably, neither the parents of the deceased nor any witness has deposed the details of nature of harassment or any particular word of taunting. In that view of the matter, since the present appellants have crossed the age of 80 years and even as submitted by learned advocate for the appellants, their whereabouts is also not known to him and no minimum sentence is provided, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to already undergone. It is also emerging out that the appellants have already undergone the sentence of 2-3 months during trial and during the pendency of this appeal. Even no useful purpose would be served to send them in jail for serving out rest of the sentence.

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 04.08.2003 passed in by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.105 of 2000 is hereby modified and the sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by the appellants. It is made clear that the appellants need not to surrender. The bail and bail bond stands cancelled.

Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.