Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajubhai Chhatrasinh Chavda on 5 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1138 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJUBHAI CHHATRASINH CHAVDA & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 05/03/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section
378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer
& Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Vadodara
(hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.
231 of 2007 on 11.12.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has
acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections
498(A), 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
as “IPC” for short).
1.1] The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as
they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and
brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as
under:
2.1] The accused No. 1 was married to Vidhya, the daughter of the
complainant, Manharbhai Dahyabhai Gohil and the accused No. 2 is the
mother-in-law of deceased Vidhya. After her marriage for six months, her
matrimonial life was good, but thereafter both the accused would
mentally and physically harass Vidhya and ask her to bring money and
quarreled with her on trivial issues and as Vidhya could not suffer the
torture, on 08.05.2006, she tied the end of her sari to the roof and hanged
herself and committed suicide. The complainant Manharbhai Dahyabhai
Gohil filed the complaint with the Chhani Police Station under Sections
498(A), 306, 114 of the IPC on 08.05.2006, which was registered at I-
C.R. No. 73 of 2006
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and the necessary documents were seized and after
completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet before the
Page 2 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the
case was committed to the Sessions Court, Vadodara as per the
provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case
was registered Sessions Case No. 231 of 2007.
2.3] The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused
appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the
copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the
provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge at Exh. 5 was framed
against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 6 to 7, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge
and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4] The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home
the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCES
Sr. PW's Particulars Exh.
No.
1. 1 Manharbhai Dahyabhai Gohil 9
2. 2 Prabhatbhai Punjabhai Gohil 12
3. 3 Narvatsinh Jinabhai Parmar 18
Page 3 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
4. 4 Kesarben Manharbhai Gohil 19
5. 5 Rekhaben Mahendrabhai 20
6. 6 Dr. Vidhyut K Parmar 21
7. 7 Indrasinh Chandrasinh Vadajiya 24
ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES
Sr. Particulars Exh.
No.
1. Complaint 10
2. Application of Manharbhai Dahyabhai 11
3. Panchnama of place of offence 13
4. Yadi 14
5. Inquest Panchnama 15
6. Yadi 16
7. Receipt 17
8. Postmorterm note 22
9. Yadi 23
10 Yadi to Asst. Commissioner of Police 25
2.5] After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing
pursis at Exh. 26, the further statement of the accused under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and after the
arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned
Page 4 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the
impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit the accused from all
the charges leveled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and
order of acquittal, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal
mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed
by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and
the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination,
nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case
has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondent and the
judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any
basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the
respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya, for the appellant State.
Though served the respondents, none has appeared either in person or
Page 5 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
through an advocate on behalf of the respondent-accused. Perused the
impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the
entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya has taken this Court through
the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and
submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and
evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated direct
and indirect evidence in the case. That the complainant has supported the
case of the prosecution, which is corroborated by the deposition of the
medical officer and the witnesses have identified the accused before the
learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully prove the case beyond
reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor
contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of
incident. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal,
improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and
the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it
would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in
acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Page 6 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has
observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006
SC 831, this Court stated; “While deciding an appeal against
acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power
exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of
appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one
significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be
interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial
court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and
plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely
because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear
in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt.
Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing
with the decision of the trial court”. (emphasis supplied)
From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following
general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing
with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and
reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate
Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’,
‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted
conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal.
Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’
to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence
and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
Page 7 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding
of acquittal recorded by the trial court..
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in
acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal.
That the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when
the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has
not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. That there is no
inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after
re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible
view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
8. As the appeal pertains to a case under Section 306 of the IPC, it
would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs The State of Madhya Pradhesh
Criminal Appeal No. 221/2025 (@ SLP(Cr) No. 11868/2023) passed on
17th January, 2025 which is as under:
11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
Page 8 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
“306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever
abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
“107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First. – Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly. – Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing
of that thing; or
Thirdly. – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
of that thing.”
As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the
ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the
commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who
Firstly – instigates any person to do that thing or Secondly – engages
with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or
Thirdly – intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
of that thing.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp
(3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’
and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:-
“3. …Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the
heat of the moment between quarreling people. Nothing serious is
expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the
requisite ‘mens rea’ on the assumption that these words would be
carried out in all events. …”
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8
SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under
Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107
IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the
suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or
Page 9 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for
attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1
SCC 707, this Court held as under:-
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before
holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the
court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the
case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find
out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had
left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It
is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide
there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is
not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC
there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said
offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of
suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by
doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore,
the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must
be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be
convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar
vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as
under:-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined
different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as
under: (SCC p. 629)“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage
to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not
necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive
of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is
not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a
continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in
which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered inPage 10 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no
evidence and material available on record where-from an inference of
the appellant accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema
(the appellant’s wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.”
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided
by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section
306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push
the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.”
[Emphasis supplied]
9. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1
Manharbhai Dahyabhai Gohil at Exh. 9 and the witness is the
complainant who has narrated all the details mentioned in the complaint.
The witness has stated that the accused would not give food to his
daughter Vidhya and would demand for money and if she did not get the
money, they would quarrel with her. That they asked her to leave the
house and Vidhya and her husband had gone to live separately from the
other in-laws about two months ago. That, on the date of the incident, he
was informed at around six 6 o’clock that his daughter had committed
suicide and when he went he saw that his daughter was lying on the
floor, and the police were present. That he had a doubt that she was
killed and he filed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 10. That he
Page 11 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
had also filed a written application in Chhani Police Station, which is
produced at Exh 11.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness stated that his daughter and his son-in-law would
come to his house and after one year, his daughter conceived and she
delivered a son who expired and thereafter her in-laws took her back to
her matrimonial house. That, as she lost her son Vidhya was very upset
and for two months, she was treated at Shreeji Hospital and was also
admitted as an indoor patient for 2 to 3 days. That his daughter and son-
in-law were staying separately on rent and her uncle in law had removed
her mother-in-law, her husband and her from the house and as they were
removed from the house, she was very upset. He does not know why the
incident has occurred and she had never stated that she was facing any
mental harassment from the accused. That he did not tell the police that
he had a doubt that his daughter was killed, but was stating it for the first
time before the court. That his daughter had come two days prior to the
incident to his house and she was very happy. That after the incident, all
the relatives had gathered, and all the relatives had decided to file the
complaint.
Page 12 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
9.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2
Prabhatbhai Poonjabhai Gohil at Exh. 12 and the witness is the uncle of
the deceased who has stated that at the time of the incident, Vidhya did
not have any living child, and on receiving the information of her death,
he had gone and found that she had committed suicide. His niece Vidhya
had come to visit him 2 to 3 times after her marriage, but she did not
discuss anything and he does not know how she was treated in her
matrimonial home as he did not have any conversation with her. The
witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been
declared hostile and has been cross examined at length by the learned
APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on
record.
9.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3
Narvatsinh Jinabhai Parmar at Exh. 18 and the witness is the cousin of
deceased Vidhya. The witness has stated that Vidhya would frequent his
house on occasions and whenever she would come to her house, she
would tell her mother about the torture by the accused and would tell her
that the mother-in-law was demanding for dowry. Vidhya had committed
suicide by hanging and he had gone and he saw that she was lying on the
Page 13 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
floor. he does not know the reason for the incident, and he cannot say
whether she herself had committed suicide or someone had hanged her.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the accused did not quarrel in front of
him, and he does not know whether Vidhya ‘s son expired. That he did
not inform the police that the accused No. 2 was demanding for dowry
and had kill her.
9.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4
Kesarben Manharbhai Modi at Exh. 19 and the witness is the mother of
the deceased Vidhya. The witness has stated that her daughter was being
harassed by the accused and she, her daughter and son-in-law had gone to
live separately from the mother-in-law. That two and half years after her
marriage, Vidhya delivered a son but he expired and she does know how
Vidhya expired but later on they came to know that six to seven persons
had killed her daughter. That her daughter did not commit suicide. The
witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been
declared hostile and has been cross examined at length by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor but nothing to support the case of the
prosecution has come on record.
Page 14 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that on Saturday, her daughter had come
to her house, but she did not meet her and she did not have any
conversation with anyone. That in their community, they have to take
Dapa worth Rs.5000/- and utensils which is not excessive dowry and the
accused No. 2 had quarrel with her brother regarding vacating of the
property. That police did not record her statement and at the time of the
incident, her daughter was residing separately from her in laws. That she
does not the reason for the incident.
9.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5
Rekhaben Mahendrabhai at Exh. 20 and the witness is the neighbor of the
deceased Vidhya. This witness has stated that at the time of the
incident, she was in her room and she does not know anything about the
incident but the accused No. 2 shouted and she came to know about the
incident and saw Vidhya hanging that the accused No. 2 brought her
down and put her on the floor. That she does not know why Vidhya had
committed suicide and the police had arrived and the entire procedure
was done. That Vidhya was her neighbor and her matrimonial life was
good.
Page 15 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the accused No. 1 was working and
sometimes he had day duty and sometimes he had night duty and their
matrimonial life was good. That the accused No. 2 was residing
separately and as Vidhya has delivered a premature child and he had
expired, she was very unhappy would not talk to anyone. That Vidhya
was of a stubborn nature and there was no harassment by the accused.
9.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Dr.
Vidhyut K Parmar at Exh. 21 and the witness is the Medical Officer of
PHC at Sankarda, Taluka and District: Vadodara, who has conducted the
postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. The witness has stated that
on 08-05-2006, the postmortem was conducted and as per column No. 17,
the following injuries were found;
1. Ligature mark from middle tracheal process of left
vertical vertibrie which is 20 cm transversely & 1 cm
vertically depth middle toward downward direction.
2. 2nd ligature mark small 3 cm x 1 cm, 2cm below 1 st
ligature mark.
3. Right side front of neck 2 contusion mark seen 1cm x 1
cm.
Page 16 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
There was a fracture of the Hyoid bone and the cause of death was
Strangulation, leading to Asphyxial of the lung and brain leading to
death.
9.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7
Indrasinh Chandrasinh Vadachiya at Exh. 24 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail all the procedure that
was undertaken by him during the investigation for the offence. The
witness has stated that the accused was staying at his maternal uncle’s
places but he has not recorded the statement of his maternal uncle.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, from the evidence, it has emerged that the deceased and the
accused No. 1 were residing separately from the accused No. 2 and there
is no specific allegation of any harassment to the deceased Vidhya by the
accused. Admittedly, deceased Vidhya had delivered a premature son
who expired and she was suffering from mental issues and she was being
treated at Shreeji Hospital where she was admitted as an indoor patient
for two to three days. Prosecution Witness No. 5 Rekhaben
Mahendrabhai is the best witness, who could depose about any
harassment regarding the accused as she is an independent witness but
she has stated that the deceased and the accused No. 1 were residing two
Page 17 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
to three houses away her house and the deceased Vidhya was unhappy
due to the loss of her son. That there was no harassment by the accused
No. 1 and in the entire evidence, there is nothing on record to suggest that
the deceased was harassed to such an extent that she was incited to
commit suicide. Prosecution Witness No. 4 Kesarben Manharbhai Gohil,
the mother of the deceased and Prosecution Witness No. 2 Prabhatbhai
Punjabhai Gohil, the uncle of the deceased have not supported the case of
the prosecution and they have been declared hostile and in the entire
evidence, the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC are not made. The
learned Trial Court has discussed all the oral as well as documentary
evidences in detail and has concluded that the contradictory evidence of
the complainant and the witnesses cannot be relied upon and it cannot be
said that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubts.
Moreover, the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the
accused is fairly possible and there is no illegality and perversity in the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
11. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Mahendra
Awase (supra), the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence
in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and
illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned
Page 18 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1138/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2025
undefined
Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified
in extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the charges
leveled against him. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are
absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been
committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete
agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order
of extending benefit of doubt and acquittal recorded by the learned Trial
Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and
resultantly, the same is dismissed.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Presiding Officer & Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
No. 4, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 231 of 2007 on 11.12.2007, is
hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to
the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
Page 19 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:37:57 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link