Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 288 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Shatubhai Gardabhai Barela

2025-03-18

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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order dated 31.03.2009 in Sessions Case No.64 of 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.5, Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under : 2.1. The accused was married to deceased Ruiya about 7 years prior to the unfortunate incident and they had 3 children out of the marriage. The eldest being 5 years old and the youngest 2 years old. They all lived together at Unaliya village. The accused had mortgaged the jewelry of his wife Ruiya and had used the money for household and land expenses and two days prior to the incident, they had a verbal quarrel. The accused used to mentally and physically harass his wife and as Ruiya was so fed up of the harassment, on 05.03.2008 before 15:00 hours, she consumed the pesticides kept in the house and expired. The complaint was filed by Valsing Gordhanbhai Barela, the uncle of the deceased on 07.03.2008 before the Dy.S.P. Kapadvanj camp at Thasra under Section 498(A) and 306 of the IPC, which was registered I-C.R.No.46 of 2008 with Thasra Police Station. 2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Sessions Case No.64 of 2008. 2.3. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Sessions Case No.64 of 2008. 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. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.4 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and has produced 15 documentary evidence in support of the case. 2.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.40, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the IPC. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of natural justice. That there are directed and indirect evidence connecting the respondents with crime produced in this Court, in spite of the fact, the learned Trial Court, without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, straight way arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the ratio laid down by the judgment of the Apex Court which are applicable to the facts of the present case and the impugned judgment and order is perverse and suffering from legal and factual error apparent on the record. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the ratio laid down by the judgment of the Apex Court which are applicable to the facts of the present case and the impugned judgment and order is perverse and suffering from legal and factual error apparent on the record. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses which was fully supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is without giving any cogent and convincing reasons, illegal, invalid and improper, and therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Ms.Dhwani Tripathi for the appellant – State and learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tejas Barot assisted by learned advocate Ms.Rhea Choksi for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms.Dhwani Tripathi for the appellant – State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumptions, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence and impose maximum sentence on the accused. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tejas Barot assisted by learned advocate Ms.Rhea Choksi for the respondent – original accused has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal. 7. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal. 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 Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415 , the Apex Court has observed as under: Recently, in Kallu Vs. 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 ap- pellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an ap- pellate 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. 8. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must. 9. The accused has been charged with the offence under Section 306 of the IPC and at this juncture 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.5543 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. 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 willful 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. 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. 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. “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 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 common 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. 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 Gujarat, this Court has 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 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 laid down the parameters of what 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. 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. 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 Haryana 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 of the above, the evidence produced by the prosecution on record is appreciated and the prosecution has examined PW-1 Valsing Gordhanbhai Barela at Exh.8 and the witness is the complainant, who has supported the contents of the complaint, which is produced at Exh.9. The witness has stated that his niece Ruiya was married seven years prior to the incident and they were residing in Madhya Pradesh and after 2 to 3 years, they migrated to Gujarat and they had been given land by the Government at village Sandholi Trikampura, Taluka Thasra. They had three children from the marital life. The father-in-law of Ruiya had bad intentions about her and the accused had the habit of consuming liquor. They used to quarrel very often and the accused used to physically and mentally harass his niece Ruiya and she had a quarrel with him and came to Madhya Pradesh with her children. That after sometime, she came back to Trikampura village and she committed suicide because of the ill-treatment by the accused. The complaint has been filed which is produced at Exh.9. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that because of the bad intention of the father-in-law of Gardabhai, the accused and his father had a fight and the accused had physically assaulted his father. The complaint has been filed which is produced at Exh.9. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that because of the bad intention of the father-in-law of Gardabhai, the accused and his father had a fight and the accused had physically assaulted his father. That after the quarrel, Ruiya had gone to her brother’s house for two months. That he had informed her mother about the death of Ruiya, but she did not come and he had come to Vishrampur on 06.03.2008. The cremation of Ruiya was done on 06.03.2008 at about 16:000 hours and after the cremation, he went back to Vishrampura, and thereafter, he and his brothers got together and decided to file the complaint and he filed the complaint with Thasra police Station on 07.03.20083. 10.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Pratapsinh Laxmansinh Rathod at Exh.10 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of place of offence, which is produced at Exh.11. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. 10.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Shriram Bathariya Mankat at Exh.12 and the witness is the panch witness of the inquest panchnama, which is produced at Exh.13. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the dead body of Ruiya was identified by her uncle Badshah Gordhaniya. 10.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Badshah Gorhaniya at Exh.15 and the witness is the uncle of the deceased Ruiya, who has stated that his niece was married seven years prior to the incident as per the customs of their community, and one year after the marriage, they came to Gujarat and started residing at Thasara. That his niece Ruiya had three children, and at the time of the incident, he was in the M.P.Vasahat. That the father-in-law of his niece had bad intentions about his niece and the accused and his father had a quarrel about the issue and the accused used to also quarrel with his niece. His niece Ruiya had consumed poison and she expired and he was informed on the telephone and he does not know the reason for Ruiya to commit suicide. His niece Ruiya had consumed poison and she expired and he was informed on the telephone and he does not know the reason for Ruiya to commit suicide. The wit- ness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP. During the cross-examination by learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the accused and his fa- ther had a quarrel because of the bad intentions of his father about Ruiya and because of the quarrel between them, Ruiya had gone and resided at Morkhoda village for two months. That when he had gone to visit Ruiya, she never told him that her husband was physically assauling her and harassing her and the police did not record his statement, but merely asked him his name and other details. 10.4. The prosecution has examined PW-5 Rulsinh Surpal Barela at Exh.16 and the witness is the brother of the deceased who has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-exami- nation by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the children of his sister are residing with the accused and he does not know whether the jewellery of his sister was mort- gaged. The police did not record his statement and he did not give any details to the police. 10.5. The prosecution has examined PW-6 Tulsiram Surpal Bhalera at Exh.17 and the witness is the nephew of the com- plainant and the cousin brother of deceased Ruiya. The witness has admitted about the bad intentions of the father-in-law of de- ceased Ruiya and has stated that deceased had committed suicide after consuming poison. During the cross-examination by the ad- vocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the accused and his father were quarreling and the accused had also physically as- saulted his father and Ruiya had gone for two months to reside with her brother after the incident. 10.6. The prosecution has examined PW-7 Jaysinh Surpal Barela at Exh.18 and the witness is the brother of the deceased who has supported the case of the prosecution. 10.7. 10.6. The prosecution has examined PW-7 Jaysinh Surpal Barela at Exh.18 and the witness is the brother of the deceased who has supported the case of the prosecution. 10.7. The prosecution has examined PW-8 Jarmalbhai Jham- sinh Barela at Exh.22 and the witness is the neighbour of the de- ceased who has stated that he is residing in Vishrampura Lat, M.P.Vasahat along with others of his village and they have been given land by the government as their land had been acquired by the government in the “Narmada Yojana”. The incident has oc- curred on 05.03.2008 and he was at his home, when Ruiya, the niece of Badshah Gordhaniya Barela, had consumed poison and expired. He was informed about the same by Badshah on his tele- phone and as he had a mobile phone, he had phoned Lalsinh and told him about the incident. He does not know the reason for Ruiya to commit suicide and as the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution has been declared hostile and has cross-ex- amined by the learned APP. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he does not know whether the accused was mentally and physically harassing the deceased and deceased Ruiya used to come to his house often. 10.8. The prosecution has examined PW-9 Duvalsinh Rajen- dra Baraiya at Exh.23 and the witness is the cousin brother of the deceased Ruiya, who has stated that on 05.03.2008, he had come to Thasara and gone to the Vasahat and had come to know that Ruiya has consumed poison and expired. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for accused, the witness has stated that Gardabhai, the father-in-law of Ruiya, had bad intentions about her and the accused and his father used to quarrel often and before the incident, she had gone with her children to Madhya Pradesh and stayed with her brother for two months. That whenever the accused used to quarrel with his father, he would take the side of Ruiya and he was never called to the police station to have his statement recorded. 10.9. PW-10 Dr. Mayankbhai Manilal examined at Exh.24 is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at the CHC Thasara on 06.03.2008 and he has conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Ruiya Shatubhai Barela on 06.03.2008. 10.9. PW-10 Dr. Mayankbhai Manilal examined at Exh.24 is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at the CHC Thasara on 06.03.2008 and he has conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Ruiya Shatubhai Barela on 06.03.2008. The postmortem note is produced Exh.25 and as per the say of the witness, there were no injuries seen on the body and white froth was found in the mouth on the cheeks and abdomen and the clothes were froth stained. The cause of death was kept pending till the viscera report was received and after the viscera report was received, the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest followed by poisoning of Mitrobenzine according to FSL report. The witness has produced the cause of death certificate at Exh.26. 10.10. The prosecution has examined PW-11 Mansinh Poojab- hai at Exh.27 and the witness is the P.S.O., who has registered the offence at Thasara Police Station I-C.R.No.46 of 2008 under Sec- tions 498(A) and 306 IPC and had entered the details in the Station Diary which is produced at Exh.28. 10.11. PW-12 Chimanbhai Ranchhodbhai, Head Constable, Buckle No. 1364, examined at Exh.29 is the Investigating Officer of Accidental Death No.3 of 2008. The witness has stated that on 05.03.2008, while he was at the police station, Shatubhai Gardabhai Barela had come to the police station and had given the intimation about the death of his wife, which was registered as Accident Death No.3 of 2008. The witness has produced the intimation at Exh.30. 10.12. The prosecution has examined PW-13 Nareshkumar Harjivandas Patel at Exh.32 and the witness is the Dy.S.P., Kapad-vanj, who has recorded the complaint of the complainant. 10.13. PW-14 Randhirsinh Sardarsinh Dodia examined at Exh.33 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure that was undertaken by him during investigation of the offence. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the ac- cused, the witness has stated that during investigation, it was found that the marital life of the deceased was more than seven years and she had three children out of the marriage. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the ac- cused, the witness has stated that during investigation, it was found that the marital life of the deceased was more than seven years and she had three children out of the marriage. At the time of the incident, the children were with the deceased and during in- vestigation, tt was also found that the accused and his father used to quarrel as his father had bad intentions about the deceased and the deceased had gone to Madhya Pradesh with her children and stayed at her brothers place for two months. That while she was at her brother’s place, she has never stated that the accused would consume liquor and harass and he has not recorded the statement of the mother of the deceased. 11. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the evidence that has emerged on record is that the quarrel between the deceased and the accused was as the jewellery of the deceased was mortgaged and the accused used to harass the deceased to such an extent that she had committed suicide. There is no iota of evidence to suggest that any jewellery was mortgaged by the accused and the complainant and other witnesses were residing in Madhya Pradesh whereas the accused and the deceased were residing at Thasara. The evidence that has consistently emerged in the evidence of all the witnesses is that Gardabhai, the father of the accused and father-in-law of deceased Ruyia had a bad intentions on deceased Ruiya and the accused and his father would constantly quarrel about this issue and the accused had also physically assaulted his father. That after this incident, deceased Ruiya had taken her children and had gone to reside at her brother‘s place for two months, and during that time, she had never stated that she was being physically and mentally harassed by the accused. There is no iota of evidence that the accused and the deceased were quarreling or that the accused was physically and mentally harassing the deceased to such an extent that she was compelled to commit suicide. 12. In view of the above, 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. 12. In view of the above, 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 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 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. 13. The impugned judgment and the order dated 31.03.2009 in Sessions Case No.64 of 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.3, Nadiad is hereby confirmed. 14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.