Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Niranjan Kanji Chudasama on 9 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1295 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NIRANJAN KANJI CHUDASAMA & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RC KAKKAD(389) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 09/01/2025
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 Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, Veraval (hereinafter
referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 76 of
2002 on 31/01/2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has
extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondent for the
offence punishable under Sections 498-A , 306 and 114 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as “IPC” for short.)
Page 1 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
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 complainant Mohanbhai Nathabhai Vaghela is the brother
of deceased Kantaben and deceased Kantaben was married to
the accused No. 1 about two years prior to the incident. The
accused No. 2 is the sister-in-law of the deceased and the
accused No. 3 is the aunty-in-law of the deceased. As per the
complaint, the deceased was being ill-treated by the accused, as
she could not bear a child and all the accused used to mentally
and physically harass deceased Kantaben and on 12/04/2002 at
around 05:00 pm, the deceased poured kerosene on herself and
set herself ablaze. That she was taken to the Allopathy
Dispensary at Chorvad and from there to the Government
Hospital, Veraval and thereafter to the Civil Hospital,
Junagadh, where she succumbed to her burn injuries on
16/04/2002. The complaint was registered at Chorvad Police
Station being I-C.R.No. 22 of 2002 under the provision of
Page 2 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
Sections 306, 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses, drew the necessary panchnamas, collected
the necessary documents including the medical certificate,
dying declaration of Kantaben recorded by the Executive
Magistrate, Veraval, Postmortem report etc. and after the FSL
analysis reports were received, a chargesheet came to be filed
before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maliya
Hatina and as the said offences against the accused were
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Veraval as per the provisions
of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case
was registered Sessions Case No. 176 of 2002.
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. 1 was framed against the accused
and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 2 to 4
respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the
Page 3 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on
record.
2.4 The prosecution has examined ten witnesses and produced 36
documentary evidences in support of their case and after the
closing pursis was filed by the learned APP at Exh. 62, the
further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded wherein the accused
denied all the evidence of the prosecution and after the
arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the
learned 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 failed to appreciate the
oral evidence of the witnesses, who are the close relatives of the
deceased. The prosecution has proved that the accused caused
mental and physical harassment to the deceased and were taunting
Page 4 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
her as she could not bear a child and they subjected her to cruelty
and compelled and induced her to commit suicide by pouring
kerosene on her body and as she sustained serious burn injuries,
she succumbed to her injuries during course of treatment. The
complainant has fully supported the case of the prosecution and in
in fact on the previous day of the incident, the deceased and the
accused No. 1 had gone to the house of the complainant and the
deceased was continuously informing her brothers and mother that
she was subjected to mental and physical harassment. That all the
documentary evidences also support the case of the prosecution
but the learned trial Court has not relied on the same and the
impugned judgment is contrary to the evidence on record and
hence the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the appellant State and
learned advocate Mr. R.C.Kakkad for the respondents. 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 and submitted that the
Page 5 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
oral and documentary evidences prove that the deceased Kantaben
had poured kerosene on herself at her matrimonial home and she
suffered serious burn injuries and succumbed to the burn injuries
during treatment. The witnesses, who were family members of the
deceased Kantaben, have deposed that she was subjected to mental
and physical harassment and she used to inform her family
members about the cruelty meted out to her at matrimonial home
by the accused. The learned trial Court has grossly erred in
acquitting the accused and learned APP has urged this Court to
quash and set aside the judgement and order of acquittal and find
the respondents guilty for the said offence.
6. Learned advocate Mr.R.C.Kakkad for the respondents has
submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution on record, it is
proved that the immediately after the incident of burn had
occurred, the deceased Kantaben was taken to the Allopathy
Dispensary at Chorvad by the accused No. 1 and in the history, she
had stated that she had sustained burn injuries while she was
preparing tea on the primus stove and she had worn a gown, which
had caught fire. That she had categorically stated before the
Medical Officer at the Allopathy Dispensary, Chorvad and the
Page 6 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
Government Hospital, Veraval, that she had sustained burn
injuries, while preparing tea and there was no ill-treatment by any
of her in-laws. Learned advocate Mr. Kakkad has submitted that
the dying declaration of deceased Kantaben was recorded on
12/04/2002 at 19:30 Hrs; by the Executive Magistrate, Veraval at
the Government Hospital, Veraval, wherein, the Residential
Medical Officer (RMO) of Government Hospital has endorsed that
injured was fully conscious to give a statement, which was
recorded in his presence and in the dying declaration, she has
categorically stated that she was preparing tea and the flame from
the primus caught her cloths and her husband and other in-laws
brought her to the hospital. Moreover, prior to the incident, a
Criminal Case No. 167 of 2001 was registered before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maniya Hatina, wherein, the
deceased Kantaben, her mother Janiben Nathabhai Vaghela and
her father Nathabhai Lakhabhai Vaghela had given their
depositions on oath, wherein, they all have categorically stated that
there were minor verbal altercations between the deceased and the
accused No. 1 but there was no physical or mental ill-treatment
meted out to her. That due to some minor verbal altercations, she
had came to her parental home and wanted to go back and hence
Page 7 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
filed the case and her in-laws had never tortured her as she could
not bear a child. The learned trial Court has considered all the
evidences of the prosecution on record and has rightly acquitted
the accused and learned advocate Mr. Kakkad has urged this Court
to reject the appeal of the appellant-State.
7. 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 the case of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka passed in
Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 on 12.02.2024, wherein, the
Apex Court has observed in Para Nos. 24 to 26, as under:
“24. We may firstly discuss the position of law regarding the scope of
intervention in a criminal appeal. For, that is the foundation of this challenge.
It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unless proven guilty. The
presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a
fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets
concertized when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial
Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was
not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold is
expected to rebut the same in appeal.
25. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and there is no
quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate
powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the
evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to re appreciate the
evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of
acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial
Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due
consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for
consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by
an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken
by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meantPage 8 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an
illegality or perversity.
1. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a criminal case is
not an extraordinary phenomenon. The ‘two views theory’ has been judicially
recognized by the Courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of
evidence results into two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is
to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally
plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable
doubt in the case of the prosecution.
Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when
two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the
accused is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the
view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open
for the High Court to convict the accused by re appreciating the evidence. If
such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle
the rights and liabilities in the eyes of law. In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka,“13. Considering the reasons given by the trial Court and on appraisal
of the evidence, in our considered view, the view taken by the trial
Court was a possible one. Thus, the High Court should not have
interfered with the judgment of acquittal. This Court in Jagan M.
Seshadri v. State of T.N. [(2002) 9 SCC 639] has laid down that as the
appreciation of evidence made by the trial Court while recording the
acquittal is a reasonable view, it is not permissible to interfere in
appeal. The duty of the High Court while reversing the acquittal has
been dealt with by this Court, thus:
“9. …We are constrained to observe that the High Court was
dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to deal
with various grounds on which acquittal had been based and to
dispel those grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles
while dealing with appeal against acquittal have been overlooked
by the High Court. If the appreciation of evidence by the trial
Court did not suffer from any flaw, as indeed none has been
pointed out in the impugned judgment, the order of acquittal
could not have been set aside. The view taken by the learned trial
Court was a reasonable view and even if by any stretch of
imagination, it could be said that another view was possible, that
was not a ground sound enough to set aside an order of
acquittal.”” (emphasis supplied) In Sanjeev v. State of H.P., the
Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed the relevant decisions and
summarized the approach of the appellate Court while deciding
an appeal from the order of acquittal. It observed thus:-
Page 9 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined "7. It is well settled that: -
7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had
weighed with the trial Court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with,
in case the appellate Court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by
the trial Court deserves to be upturned (see Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of
Karnataka, Anwar Ali v. State of H.P.)7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial Court, the normal presumption
of innocence in a criminal matter gets
reinforced (see Atley v. State of U.P.)7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate
Court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against
acquittal (see Sambasivan v. State of Kerala).”
7.1 In Para – 36, the Apex Court, in the case of Mallappa (Supra), has observed as
under:-
“36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no
innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential
values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The
principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could
be summarized as:-
(i)Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and
such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral
or documentary;
(ii)Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a
miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii)If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are
possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv)If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view mere
possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v)If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a
re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons
given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi)In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court
must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the
decision of the Trial Court.
8. 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
Page 10 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
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
reappreciate 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.
9. The accused have been charged with the offence under Section 306
of the IPC and with regard to Section 306 of the IPC it would be fit
to reproduce the observations of the Apex Court in the case of
Prakash and others versus State of Maharashtra in the order passed
in Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.
1073 of 2023 on 20 December 2024 in paras 12 to 22 which are as
under :-
12. The relevant provisions of the IPC that fall for consideration are as under:
“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.
Page 11 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined
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.
Explanation 1.– A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily
causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said
to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.– Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of
an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by
one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In
order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be
proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased
by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one
of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and
again, and its principles are well- established. To attract the offence of
abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts
of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close
proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or
incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide
and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other
option but to commit suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of
this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally
aiding another person to do a 10 particular thing. To bring a charge under
Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of
instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without
such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face
of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained.
Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the
accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit
suicide.
Page 12 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined
16. This Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and
Another12, had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 306 of the IPC
and the ingredients which are essential for abetment, as set out in Section 107
of the IPC. It observed as follows:-
“16. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code,
however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation.
“Sui” means “self” and “cide” means “killing”, thus implying an act of self-
killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself,
irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing
himself.
………..
18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that
the successful offender is 12 (2010) 12 SCC 190 : 2010 INSC 506 11 beyond
the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC.……….
21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of
this Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P.[1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 1157] In Mahendra Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC
(Cri) 1157] the allegations levelled were as under: (SCC p. 731, para 1) “1. …
My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband’s elder brother’s
wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra
wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law.
Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.” The
Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by
no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the
deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under
Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of
harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law.
………..
23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107]
this Court has cautioned that:
(SCC p. 90, para 17) “17. … The court should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced
in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the
victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it
[appears] to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and 12 differences in domestic life quite commonPage 13 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and
differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual
in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence
of suicide should be found guilty.”
24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
[(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with
this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the
words “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be
intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each
person’s suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his
own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay
down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be
decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally
aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by
this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC 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
that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he committed suicide.”
17. This Court held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Therefore, without
a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid a person in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. This Court further
observed that the intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided
by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of
IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Abetment also
requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no other option and that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. However, this Court
has cautioned that since each person reacts differently to the same provocation
depending on a variety of factors, it is impossible to lay down a straightjacket
formula to deal with such cases. Therefore, every such case has to be decided
on the basis of its own facts and circumstances
18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others
v. State of Gujarat13, this Court has 13 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679 : 2024
INSC 960 14 relied on S.S. Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens
rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and
explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for
establishing abetment under the law, that is deliberate and conspicuous
Page 14 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
intention to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain
unfulfilled. This Court observed as follows:
“18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established
legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea–the intention to abet the
act–is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an
accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active
or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life.
The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be
evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement
for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the
necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the
act of suicide.”
19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a crucial
element of abetment. While dealing with an issue of a similar nature, this
Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,14 laid down the
parameters of what 14(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2001 INSC 515 15 would be
constituted to be an act of instigation. This Court observed as follows:-
“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 in the fit of anger
or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be
said to be instigation.”
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is to goad,
urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. It has been held that
in order 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, however, a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt
out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a
word uttered in the fit of anger or 16 emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation
Page 15 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
21. Relying on the decision in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), this Court
in the case of Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana15 observed as
follows:
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or
indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be
disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of
an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving
multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and
responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the
court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere
allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice
unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate
to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of
suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of
suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the
act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this
Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed
suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not
ordinarily expected to induce a 15 (2019) 17 SCC 301 : 2019 INSC 810 17
similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold
the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the
accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation
which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide,
the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused
plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim,
which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held
guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and
deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where
the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a
particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide.However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words
or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be
that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of
human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while
taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and
psyche of the accused and the deceased.
Page 16 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined
16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react
in myriad ways; and impact of one’s action on the mind of another carries
several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different
persons; and so far a particular person’s reaction to any other human’s action is
concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the
same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of
a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing,
rural or urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve
teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors,
including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. 18 Hence,
each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.”
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. It has been held that since the cause
of suicide particularly in the context of the offence of abetment of suicide
involves multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour, the court
would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement
to the commission of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere
allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice
unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such an offending
action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further clarified
that the question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be
examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It was
further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the
accused intended nothing more than harassment or a snap-show of 19 anger, a
particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide, however,
if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds
until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of
abetment of suicide. This Court held that owing to the fact that the human
mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions
are dealt with differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt
with its own facts and circumstances.
10. In light on the above, the evidence of the prosecution has to be
reappreciated and the prosecution has examined Prosecution
Witness No. 1 Ashwinkumar Devrajbhai Tank, at Exh. 9 and the
witness is the Medical Officer, who has conducted the postmortem
Page 17 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
on the dead body of the deceased Kantaben. The witness has stated
that, on 16/06/2002, he and panel doctor D.R.Tadhani had
conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Kantaben
wife of Niranjanbhai Chudasama and she had sustained severe
burn injuries on her neck, chest, stomach, both hands and legs and
he had given the postmortem note, which is produced at Exh.13.
The cause of death was septicemia due to burns.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the burn
injury could occur due to an accident and accidental burn injuries
could not ruled out.
10.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2
Mohanbhai Nathabhai at Exh. 19 and the witness is the
complainant and the brother of the deceased. The witness has filed
the complaint, which is produced at Exh. 20 and the witness has
stated that the deceased Kantaben was married to the accused No.
1 two years prior to the incident and she had sustained burn
injuries on 12/04/2002. That, she was residing with the accused
No.1 at Chorvad and the accused and other in-laws used to torture
her as she did not have a child. That whenever, she came to her
house, she would tell him about mental and physical harassment
Page 18 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
given to her and, on one occasion, the accused No. 1 had thrown
the deceased out of his house at around 9 pm and he had gone and
taken her to Chorvad Police Station and filed the complaint. That
on 11/04/2002, the deceased Kantaben and the accused No. 1
came on the scooter to his house and they were at his house for
half and hour to forty-five minutes and they had lunch and left. At
that time also, his sister had told him that she was being harassed
and on the next date i.e. on 12/04/2002, he was informed that the
burn incident had occurred. That they went to Veraval Government
Hospital and his sister expired on 16/04/2002 during treatment at
Vikani Hospital, Rajkot.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that prior to filing the complaint,
all family members had gathered and discussed whether the
complaint has to be filed or not and the deceased and her husband
i.e. accused No. 1 lived separately away from the family.
10.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3
Kanjibhai Nathabhai at Exh. 21 and Prosecution Witness No.4
Ramubhai Nathabhai at Exh. 22. Both the witnesses are the
brothers of the deceased Kantaben and they have fully supported
Page 19 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
the case of the prosecution and have stated the same facts as stated
by the complainant, who is their brother.
10.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5
Ramjibhai Rudabhai at Exh. 50 and the witness is a person, who
was known to the parties. The witness has stated that the deceased
and the accused No. 1 were having a good relationship and on one
or two occasions, the deceased had come to parental home as she
was upset and he had gone along with the accused No.1 to bring
the deceased back to her matrimonial home. That they lived
happily, thereafter, and on 12/04/2002, the deceased suffered burn
injuries and she succumbed to injuries during treatment. That there
was no ill-treatment by the accused or any in-laws given to the
deceased and the deceased had sustained accidental burn injuries
while she was preparing tea on the primus stove at her house. The
witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been
declared hostile.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, he has stated that the complainant and accused No. 1 did
not have a good relationship with each other and whenever the
deceased used to go to her parental house, the complainant used to
Page 20 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
keep her at his house and did not allow her to return the
matrimonial home.
10.4 The prosecution has examined Janiben Nathalal at Exh. 51 and the
witness is the mother of the deceased and she has supported the
case of the prosecution. She has stated that her daughter used to
tell her about the ill-treatment by the accused and her daughter
was burn and she expired during treatment.
During the cross-examination, this witness has stated that earlier
her daughter had filed a complaint against the accused at Chorvad
Police Station and at that time she and her son Mohan had gone to
Chorvad Police Station to file the complaint along with her
daughter and the complaint was written by her son Mohan.
10.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7
Kanaiyalal Udeshankar Joshi at Exh. 52 and the witness was
working as a PSI at Chorvad Police Station and Janva Jog Entry
No. 7 of 2002 about the burn incident of deceased Kantaben was
registered and investigated by him. That he had prepared the
panchnama of the place of offence and seized the necessary
muddamal and had recorded the statement of the connected
witnesses.
Page 21 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that during
investigating the place of offence, if smell of kerosene was found
or any hair was found, it would be noted in the panchnama and the
hair would be seized as muddamal and sent to the FSL.
10.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8
Pethabhai Meramanbhai at Exh: 53 and the witness is the Police
Station Officer of Chorvad Police Station, who had registered the
complaint of the complainant Mohanbhai Nathabhai Vaghela at I-
C.R.No. 22 of 2002 .
10.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9
Mathurdas Gokadbhai Kaneriya at Exh.56 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer, who had investigated the Accidental Death
No. 3 of 2002. The witness has stated that he had drawn the
inquest panchnama and during the cross examination, he has
stated that prior to recording the complaint, there was evidence
that the incident was an accident.
10.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 10
Dalsukhbhai Savjibhai Patel at Exh. 61 and the witness is the
Investigation Officer, who has narrated in detail the entire
procedure that he had undertaken while investigating the offence
Page 22 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
after the FIR was registered.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that in the
panchnama, there was no mention of any smell found on any
clothes or at the place of offence.
11. On minute appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution and
particularly, the chronology of the events, it is proved that the
incident had occurred at the residence of the deceased and the
accused No. 1 on 12/04/2002 at around 16:30 Hrs,. Immediately,
after the incident, Kantaben was taken to Allopathy Dispensary,
Chorvad, where she herself had given a statement that she was
making tea on a primus stove and her gown caught fire and she
was burnt. She had sustained extensive over 50% burns on the
front of chest, neck, abdomen and upper part of thigh and back
with face and upper extremities and was immediately referred to
the Junagadh Civil Hospital with a refer chit, which is produced at
Exh: 39. That she was taken to the Government Hospital, Veraval,
where she was fully conscious and she had stated that she was
preparing tea on the primus stove and her clothes caught fire and
she was married for two years but there was no ill-treatment to her
and the incident was an accident. The dying declaration of
Page 23 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
deceased Kantaben was recorded at Government Hospital, Veraval
by K.G.Chavda, Executive Magistrate in the presence of the
Residential Medical Officer, wherein, she had clearly stated that
she was residing at Chorvad and while she was making tea, her
clothes caught fire from the primus stove and she was burnt. That
her husband and other in-laws had brought her to the hospital and
she has no other complaint. The dying declaration produced at
Exh. 33 has the endorsement of the RMO stating that she is fully
conscious for giving statement of dying declaration and the
statement was given in the presence of the RMO. The panchnama
of place of offence, which is produced at Exh. 28 shows that there
was no smell of kerosene at the place of incident. Moreover, it is
on record that the deceased had earlier filed a Criminal Case No.
167 of 2001 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Maniya Hathina and the deceased had deposed in that case
at Exh. 8, her mother Janiben had deposed at Exh. 10 and her
father Nathabhai Lakhabhai Vaghela at Exh. 11 and all of them
have stated on oath before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class that there was no ill-treatment of any sort to the deceased
Kantaben.
Page 24 of 26 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined
12. The learned trial Court in the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal has discussed each oral and documentary evidences and
has concluded that from the evidence it is on record that the
deceased Kantaben died due to burn injuries and the dying
declaration has been recorded while the patient was fully
conscious and in a fit state of mind to give the dying declaration
and even before the treating doctors, it is stated by the deceased
that she had sustained burn injuries while she was preparing tea at
her matrimonial home. It is pertinent to note that the panchanama
of the place of offence was drawn on 12/04/2002 at 17:20 Hrs,
which is immediately after the incident had occurred and at that
time, no smell of kerosene was found on the floor and hence the
conclusion of the learned trial Court that the deceased Kantaben
had sustained accidental burn injuries, is just and proper.
13. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Mallappa
(Supra) and Prakash (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 Trial Court has
appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in
Page 25 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the
charges leveled against them. 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.
14. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, Veraval
in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2002 on 31/01/2008, is hereby
confirmed.
15. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back
to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
Page 26 of 26
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:40 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link