Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 161 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Arvindbhai Manharbhai Gadhvi

2025-02-25

GITA GOPI

body2025
ORDER : 1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.01, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.285 of 2006, dated 22.06.2007. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the father of the victim deceased Seemaben, who has registered the complaint on 13.02.2006, stated that his eldest daughter Seemaben married to the accused No.1 as per their customs and the span of marriage life was of 10 years. The accused No.2 is the father-in-law of the victim, whereas, the accused No.3 is mother-in-law and the accused No.4 is sister-in-law. They were living in a joint family. Out of the wedlock of 10 years, the deceased had one male child aged about 7 years. As per the case of the prosecution, allegation is that the accused No.1 was not earning and accused Nos. 2 and 3 were taunting the victim and the victim was subjected to mental and physical torture and the accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 used to instigate the accused No.1 to beat the victim. It is the case of the prosecution that whenever the victim visited the parental home, she was making complaint about the accused and after compromise she was again taken back to the matrimonial home. 3. Since, the accused No.1 was transferred to S.T. workshop at Dwarka, so the victim -Seemaben was residing at Rajkot. At late night the accused No.2 would enter the room of Seemaben and make illegal demand, but Seemaben did not surrender to the illegal demand made by the accused No.2. Thereafter Seemaben went to Dwarka, where the accused No.1 and Seemaben were residing together. Eight months prior to the date of the incident, deceased Seemaben came at her parental home and narrated the incident that her husband was not doing job and he was sending different persons to her for illegal demand. Since the deceased refused to meet with such illegal demand she was severely beaten and compelled to leave the matrimonial home. Three months thereafter the opponent accused No.2 came at the parental home of the deceased Seemaben and upon compromise, once again Seemaben was taken to matrimonial home on Adav, Taluka- Botad and thereafter too she was subjected to torture. The accused Nos. Three months thereafter the opponent accused No.2 came at the parental home of the deceased Seemaben and upon compromise, once again Seemaben was taken to matrimonial home on Adav, Taluka- Botad and thereafter too she was subjected to torture. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 were taunting her saying that her husband was not earning anything, therefore, they should not live jointly together. 4. The fact that can be noted was that the deceased committed suicide at her parental home and the offence was registered as CR. No.-I No.58 of 2006 at Shahibaug, Police Station under Sections 498(A), 323, 114 and 306 of the IPC and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and Sessions Case No.285 of2006 was filed for the accused to face trial. 5. Learned APP Mr.Rohan Raval for the appellant-State has submitted that the trial Court Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence in its true perspective. Learned APP has also submitted that the accused No.1 was sending different persons to the deceased for illegal demand was required to be appreciated and the her father-in-law was also entering her room and making illegal demand, which compelled the victim to commit suicide. 6. Learned APP has further submitted that the place of the suicide would not have much bearing since the accused had instigated her to commit suicide and under the circumstances she was left with no other option but to commit suicide. Learned APP has also submitted that after the compromise at Exh.9, the accused persons were torturing the deceased. 7. The offence was under Section 498A and she was also subjected to physical cruelty thus Section 323 of the IPC would get invoke, and the circumstances which led to ultimately death was the result of the continuous physical and mental cruelty. 8. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 , would be relevant to be mentioned since the judgment lays down the general principles for the consideration of the acquittal appeals. The Supreme Court has held thus: The following general principles regarding powers of the 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. The Supreme Court has held thus: The following general principles regarding powers of the 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 is 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 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 and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court. 9. Here in this case the facts suggest that the deceased before committing suicide was living at her parental home since last four months. The facts suggests that deceased was staying in joint family and thereafter the deceased started living with her husband at Dwarka where, his job was transferred and then they started living at Ahmedabad. Allegation is that she was subjected to cruelty at the matrimonial home, where she was staying in joint family. However, father of the deceased, who is the complainant while examined has denied all the facts stated in his complaint and has also denied any physical and mental cruelty subjected to the deceased. Allegation is that she was subjected to cruelty at the matrimonial home, where she was staying in joint family. However, father of the deceased, who is the complainant while examined has denied all the facts stated in his complaint and has also denied any physical and mental cruelty subjected to the deceased. He has also denied the allegations that the father-in-law used to make illegal demand from the deceased. The complainant father has further denied that the accused No.1 i.e. son-in-law was sending different persons with illegal demand to the deceased. He has also denied that the accused No.1 doubted her character. He was also declared hostile. In the cross examination by the public prosecutor, the complainant-father stated that her daughter died by herself on 12.02.2006 and stated that her daughter was not finding herself comfortable in the village and her son was staying at Ahmedabad. She was 100% burnt and she was not in a position to speak. Complainant was recalled to place on record the compromise at Exh.9. 10. Learned APP Mr.Raval has impressed upon this Court that dying declaration would be considered best evidence to prove the cruelty. Such arguments would not have merit since, the father of the deceased has not given any explanation with respect to settlement at Exh.9 to explain contents of the document at Exh.9 and the complainant- father denied physical and mental cruelty, which could have led the deceased to commit suicide. 11. Learned trial Court has considered dying declaration of the deceased, where it is observed that she was 95% burnt. The dying declaration was recorded on 13.02.2006. The medical Officer has very categorically stated that the deceased received 85% - 95% burnt. The learned trial Judge thus evaluated the evidence on record noted of the Executive Magistrate, that the deceased has given statement that she was fed up with her life and she was having continuous thought of her earlier ill treatment and therefore, she had poured kerosene and burnt herself. The trial Judge appreciating the fact that there is no proximate reason for the deceased to commit suicide. Since, the only reason the victim has stated before the Executive Magistrate is the earlier thoughts of her marriage life. The trial Judge appreciating the fact that there is no proximate reason for the deceased to commit suicide. Since, the only reason the victim has stated before the Executive Magistrate is the earlier thoughts of her marriage life. Therefore, the learned Judge has rightly not considered such evidence on the ground that when she has committed suicide she was staying at her father’s place and was doing job and at the time of incident there was no instigation from the side of accused- persons. Learned trial Judge has also observed that since she had received 95% burnt, she would not have been in a state of conscious mind to give any statement, further doctor has also not given such endorsement on the medical certificate. Even considering the facts such endorsement is not necessary, learned trial Judge has noted that the it is very much necessary that the the victim must be in a fit state of mind, at the time of giving dying declaration. 12. Having considered the reasons given by the learned trial Court Judge and the submissions made by the learned APP not stand on the evidence on record in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379,Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the trial court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal." 13. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal." 13. Considering the above facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the scope under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, since no perversity could be found in the judgment and order to upset the acquittal of the accused persons. 14. In view of the above reasons, the present Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.