Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 207 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Rajubhai Chhatrasinh Chavda

2025-03-05

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 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 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 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. 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. No. PW’s Particulars Exh. 1. 1 Manharbhai Dahyabhai Gohil 9 2. 2 Prabhatbhai Punjabhai Gohil 12 3. 3 Narvatsinh Jinabhai Parmar 18 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. No. Particulars Exh. 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 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 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 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. 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 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.. 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, 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 17 th January, 2025 which is as under: 11. Section 306 of the IPC reads 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.” 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. - 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 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. 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." 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 had also filed a written application in Chhani Police Station, which is produced at Exh 11. That he had a doubt that she was killed and he filed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 10. That he 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 2 nd 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. 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 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. 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 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.