Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Devsinh Ranmalbhai Gagalia on 15 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 772 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DEVSINH RANMALBHAI GAGALIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PM LAKHANI(1326) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MRS R P LAKHANI(3811) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 15/04/2025
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 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2006 on 08.08.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as
they stood in the rank and file 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 Nathiben @ Jiguben Punjabhai Suva, the daughter of complainant Kariben Punjabhai Suva and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben Punjabhai Suva. The accused No. 3 would often tell the deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben that she was the daughter of beggars and her parents had not given her anything and would mentally and physically harass her. The accused No. 3 had once thrown hot vegetables on the leg of her daughter Nathiben @ Jiguben and all the accused would mentally and physically harass deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben and the harassment was to such an extent that on 29-09-2006 at around 20:15 hours, Nathiben @ Jiguben sprinkled kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze and committed suicide. The complaint was filed by Kariben wife of Punjabhai Dadubhai Suva, the mother of deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben before the Dy.S.P, Jamnagar City on 39-2006 which was registered at Jamnagar "A" Division Police Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined Station I-C.R.No.247 of 2006 under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the IPC.
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessios Case No. 129 of 2006. 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 at Exh.7 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 8 to 10, 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 eleven oral evidences and twelve documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.50, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. 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 all 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 Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined 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 Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, for the appellant State and Mr. P.M.Lakhani for the respondents-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 Ms. Dhwani Tripathi 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 the 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 proved 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.
Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr. P.M.Lakhani appearing for the respondents- original accused submits that the judgments and orders have been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-State must be rejected.
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 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. 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 Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined 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..
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 acquittal. 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. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appre-
Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined
ciation, 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. As the appeal pertains to a case under Section 306 of the IPC, it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs The State of Madhya Pradhesh Criminal Appeal No. 221/2025 (@ SLP(Cr) No. 11868/2023) passed on 17th January, 2025 which is as under:
11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
"306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly - instigates any person to do that thing or Secondly - engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or Thirdly - intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined
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.
Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered 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]
10. In light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence on record of the case is appreciated and the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 Hiren Jayantilal Variya at Exhibit 14 and Prosecution Witness No. 3 Haji Nurmahamad Jammiyana at Exhibit 18. Both the witnesses are the panch - witnesses of the panchnama of the Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined place of offence, which is produced at Exhibit 41. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and have been crossexamined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 10.1] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 Pruthvirajsinh Chandrasinh Vaghela at Exhibit 15 and the witness was the Medical Officer at G.G. Hospital Jamnagar, when the body of deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben was brought for postmortem. The witness has stated that he along with panel doctor, Dr. Rahul Mehta conducted the postmortem on 30.09.2006 between 10.40 am to 11.30 am on the dead body of Nathiben @ Jiguben and as per Column No. 17 almost 100% dermo epidural burns were seen all over the body and there was peeling of epidermis seen with reddening and blackening effect. Strong kerosene like smell was perceived from the body and singeing effect was at some places and the heart ruptures were seen. All the injuries were antemortem and fresh burns and soot particles were seen in the trachea and the lungs were congested. In their opinion, the probable cause of death was due to burns and the postmortem note is produced at Exhibit 16. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined accused, the witness has stated that the deceased had expired due to the burn injuries but he could not say as to whether they were homicidal, accidental or suicidal. The dead body that was brought for postmortem did not have any bandages on the body.
10.2] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 Dharmendra Shivubhai Gadhavi at Exhibit 19 and Prosecution Witness No. 5 Jayaben Ramsibhai at Exhibit 20. Both the panch witnesses are the panch witnesses of the inquest panchnama which is produced at Exhibit 47 and both the panch witnesses have denied that they were the panch witnesses of any inquest panchnama. The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and have been cross-examined at length by the learned APP, but nothing to support the case of the prosecution as common record in their evidence. 10.3] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Kariben wife of Punjabhai at Exhibit 29 and the witness is the complainant and mother of the deceased who has stated that the deceased Nathiben was married about two and a half years prior to the incident and she had a one and a half year old daughter. The witness has supported the contents of the complaint and has stated that the accused Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined used to harass her and would tell her that she was the daughter of a beggar and her daughter was sent back to her parental home where she stayed forever about 10 to 15 days. That her husband and mother-in-law came and had taken her back to her matrimonial home and after five days, the incident had occurred. She had gone to the hospital and she had thereafter filed the complaint.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she had not mentioned in her complaint that her daughter had told her that it would be difficult for her to live and that the accused No. 1 had not gone for the cremation rites of her daughter. Before the marriage of her daughter Nathiben, she knew that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were labour workers for brass parts and at the time of the marriage also, they were doing labour work. The gap between the engagement and the marriage of her daughter was about three years and during this time they would visit each other's homes frequently but the accused never wanted to break off the engagement during this period. The marriage of her daughter with the accused No. 1 was through one Mandalbhai Kalubhai of her village, who was known to both the parties and after her daughter went to her matrimonial home, she was residing separately in Gokulnagar with her husband. She had happily sent her daughter as they had happily come to take her and there was no Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined quarrel at the time when her daughter had gone to her matrimonial home. The young daughter of her daughter Nathiben was residing with the accused and regarding the incident of throwing hot vegetable on the leg of her daughter, no treatment was taken by Nathiben at that time. 10.4] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Keshurbhai Hamirbhai at Exhibit 31 and the witness is the maternal uncle of deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben, who has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had gone to the house of Nathiben on two to three occasions and earlier Nathiben and the accused No. 1 had gone to reside separately and the incident had taken place in the house, where the deceased and the accused No. 1 were residing separately. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 were residing in a house situated in Panakhan area and he does not know how Nathiben was burnt.
10.5] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Bhikhabhai Jetabhai Karangiya at Exhibit 32 and the witness is the maternal uncle of deceased Nathiben, who has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined accused, the witness has stated that he knew about the incident only because his sister had told him the details and prior to the incident Nathiben and the accused No. 1 were residing separately. 10.6] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9 Rajendrasinh Umedsinh Jadeja at Exhibit 35 and the witness is the PSO, Jamnagar City "A" Division Police Station, who has registered the complaint of the complainant 10.7] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 10 Kanjibhai Virji Makwana at Exhibit 39 and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that there was a primus stove at the place of incident and kerosene smell was coming from the place and during investigation he had recorded the statements of the neighbours. The deceased and the accused No. 1 were residing separately at the place of incident.
10.8] Prosecution Witness No. 11 Amrutbhai Lallubhai Desai examined at Exhibit 48 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has recorded the complaint of the complainant and had thereafter sent the Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined complaint for registering the same towards Jamnagar City "A" Division Police Station.
11. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the facts that have come on record are that the deceased and the accused No. 1 were residing separately away from the accused Nos. 2 and 3 and if the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exhibit 41 is perused, the incidence has occurred in the resident of the deceased, which was given on rent to the accused No. 1 and the deceased. At the place of incident along with the other household items, there was a wick primus stove with very less kerosene and near the same was a small jar with a little bit of kerosene and there was kerosene all around. There was a vessel for mixing dough and other other cooking equipments and kerosene was lying all around. The panchnama of the place of offence was drawn on 30.09.2006 between 7.15 to 7.45 hours and the inquest panchnama produced at Exhibit 47 was drawn on 29.09.2006 between 21.45 hours to 22.15 hours. The complaint has been filed by the complainant Kariben W/o Punjabhai Dadubhai Sua on 30.09.2006 at 20.15 hours and the spot inspection by the Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Porbandar was undertaken on 29.09.2006 between 15.45 hours to 16.50 hours. If the report of the Scientific Officer, Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined Forensic Science Laboratory, Porbandar, which is produced at Exhibit 42 is perused, the report states that the room was a 10 feet X 10 feet room with household articles and on the eastern side was a bed and a cupboard and a kitchen stand to place vessels. On the southern side was the kitchen area having items for kitchen for cooking and the wick stove had about 500 ml of kerosene and there was another jar with 100 ml kerosene in it. The cover of the stove and the kerosene jar were both opened and and there were two burnt matchsticks and a half burnt matchbox at that place. Kerosene smell was coming from the place and at the time of drawing of the report, the roof was blackened. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.6 Kariben W/o Punjabhai, who is the mother of the deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben and the complainant in the matter but she has not fully supported the case of the prosecution and in her evidence, a number of contradictions have come on record. Prosecution Witness No. 7 Keshurbbhai Hamirbhai and Prosecution Witness No. 8 Bhikhabbhai Jethabhai Karangia both are the maternal uncles of deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben and they both have admitted that they do not have any personal knowledge about the matrimonial life of deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben. In the entire evidence of the prosecution, the final report of FSL, as to whether the inflammable items found at the place of incident were kerosene or not, has not come under on record and the report of the Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined Scientific Officer, FSL Porbandar produced at Exhibit 42, suggests that the deceased was cooking and at the place of incident, the cover of the tank of kerosene of the primus stove and the cover of the jar of kerosene were both open, which suggests that the incident was an accidental one, which had occurred while the deceased was cooking an trying to refill the wick premus stove with kerosene from the jar. There is no iota of evidence that the deceased was subjected to any harassment by the accused, and it has come on record that the deceased and the accused No. 1 were residing separately from the accused Nos. 2 and 3. There is no iota of evidence that any incident had occurred immediately prior to the unfortunate incident, and if the entire evidence is minutely produced, there are absolutely no allegations against the accused No. 2. Moreover, there is no iota of evidence that any of the accused were present at home at the time of the incident, and the learned Trial Court has discussed all these aspects in the judgment, and as there is no evidence of any aiding, abetting, goading or inciting the deceased to commit suicide, the learned Tial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in the impugned judgment in order of acquittal.
12. 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 Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined 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.
13. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2006 on 08.08.2007, is hereby confirmed.
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 15 22:23:54 IST 2025