Gujarat High Court
Madhuben Radheshyam Mantri vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/571/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 571
of 2025
==========================================================
MADHUBEN RADHESHYAM MANTRI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS NAMRATA R MULCHANDANI(9956) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 16/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent-State.
1. The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, challenging the judgment and order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Olpad, in Criminal Case No. 1462 of 2019, whereby the accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 498A, 452, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code .
2 Being aggrieved and the satisfied, the present applicant- original complainant has approached the learned Sessions Judge, Surat by way of Criminal Appeal No.203 of 2020, which came to be preferred by the State Government and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2025 and acquittal recorded by the learned trial court is upheld and confirmed.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:29:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/571/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the same, the original complainant has filed Revision application before this Court.
4. It is the case of the applicant that The present petitioner, who is the original first informant, was subjected to mental and physical harassment by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (the original accused persons) during her marital life of around four years, i.e., from 2013 to 2017. This left her with no alternative but to lodge an FIR against her husband and father-in-law for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 452, 323, 504, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner states and submits that she initially lodged an FIR at Kim Police Station, being I-C.R. No. 7 of 2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 452, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the trial commenced.
5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
6. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that The respondents were wrongly acquitted by the courts below without properly appreciating the evidence on record. It is further submitted that, despite specific and credible evidence emerging during the depositions of prosecution witnesses against the accused persons/respondents, the learned courts below failed to consider the same and proceeded to acquit the respondents erroneously. The evidence recorded in the case clearly establishes the commission of offences punishable under Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:29:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/571/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined Sections 498A, 452, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code by the accused persons, and there exists no cogent reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, it is submitted that there are specific allegations regarding the demand for dowry by the accused/respondents, as well as the actual receipt of dowry in furtherance of such demands. The offences committed by the respondents are of a grave nature and have a significant adverse impact on society at large. Therefore, the learned advocate for the applicant requested to allow the present application.
7. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the learned trial court rightly acquitted the respondents as there was no reliable evidence against the accused persons. The allegations leveled against the respondents are general in nature and are not specific. It is further submitted that the deposition of the complainant has material contradictions and the same cannot be believed from the perspective of reasonable prudent person.
8. I have perused the records and proceedings of the case, including the judgments of both the trial and appellate court. It appears that the compliant was filed at the instance of the complainant before Kim Police Station, being I-C.R. No. 7 of 2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 452, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A summons was issued and accused appeared and denied the charges levelled against him. In order to proved the case, the prosecution has Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:29:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/571/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined adduced and produced the oral as well as documentary evidence as under:
ORAL EVIDENCE:
S.No. Exh. Particular Deposition of complainant Madhuben Radheshyam 1 16 Mantri.
2 18 Deposition of witness Lilaben Radheshyam Mantri. 3 19 Deposition of witness Lilaben Radheshyam Mantri.
Deposition of police witness Rameshbhai 4 23 Madhubhai.
Deposition of witness Ghanshyamdan Khodidan 5 24 Ishrani.
Deposition of panch-witness Mahammadbhai 6 25 Rasulbhai Garasiya.
Deposition of panch-witness Gunvanthbhai Bijalbhai 7 28 Katariya.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES:
Exh S.No. Particular .
1 17 Complaint 2 26 Panchnama of place of offence
9. It appears that the learned trial Court as well as the Sessions Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the deposition of the complainant, Madhuben, contains significant improvements and variations as compared to her original complaint. During cross-examination, the complainant admitted that she had read and signed the complaint after narrating the incident, and confirmed that her deposition was based on the contents of the complaint. However, the complaint contains general allegations that appear to be part of ordinary domestic discord, without any specific accusations against the Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:29:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/571/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined respondents. The testimony of the complainant further reveals that there had been ongoing litigation between the parties since shortly after her marriage to accused No. 1 in 2013. She admitted to residing at her husband's home for only 7-8 months, during which frequent quarrels occurred, eventually leading her to file a domestic violence complaint. Although the complainant alleged physical assault by her husband and father-in-law, she did not seek any medical treatment, nor were such allegations dictated to the police in her original complaint. She also admitted that her sister's brother's son is a lawyer and that she obtained a written document from him. Furthermore, she did not inform the police about an alleged incident involving her father- in-law forcibly grabbing her hand. She acknowledged her intention to obtain a divorce from accused No. 1 and confirmed that there was no marital relationship between them, which undermines the allegations made in the complaint. Her deposition contains several contradictions and omissions. Regarding the dowry demand, she claimed that Rs.15,00,000 and furniture were demanded; however, no documentary evidence supporting this claim was submitted. As such, her testimony raises doubts about the credibility of the complaint and allegations. Considering the overall facts, circumstances, and contradictions in her testimony, it is concluded that her evidence is neither reliable nor trustworthy.
10. The courts below have also rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution examined witness Lilaben Radheshyam Mantri (Exh. 18), who alleged mental and physical cruelty by the accused. However, in cross-examination, she admitted to being Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:29:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/571/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined the complainant's mother and having no personal knowledge of the incidents. She did not know the date of the incident, admitted that her daughter had been residing with her since 2014, and had not visited the accused's house. Many facts stated in her deposition were not mentioned in her police statement, resulting in several contradictions and omissions. Being an interested witness without direct knowledge, her testimony is not reliable. Independent witness Rajubhai Dudhabhai Bharwad (Exh. 19) claimed in chief-examination to have witnessed the incident. However, in cross-examination, he admitted to frequently accompanying the complainant to court, was not present on the date of the alleged incident and did not witness any physical assault. He also failed to mention key details in his police statement. Therefore, he cannot be considered an eyewitness, and his testimony lacks credibility. The learned Trial Court rightly found the depositions of the complainant and prosecution witnesses to be inconsistent and contradictory. Police witness Rameshbhai Madhubhai (PW-10) merely performed official duties and filed the charge sheet based on recorded statements. His testimony is only corroborative and does not prove the allegations. Another police witness, Ghanshyamdan K. Israni (Exh. 24), also performed official duties but did not investigate the case personally and lacked knowledge of the complaint, making his deposition non-supportive. Panch witnesses Mohd. Rasulbhai Garasiya (Exh. 25) and Gunvant Bijalbhai Kataria (Exh. 28) were declared hostile. They did not support the prosecution's version or the contents of the panchnama (Exh. 26). Thus, mere identification of the panchnama does not establish its evidentiary value.
Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:29:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/571/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
11. In view of the above, The Trial Court and the Sessions Court rightly dismissed the application, having found that the evidence presented by the prosecution lacked credibility, consistency, and corroboration. The complainant's deposition showed material contradictions and omissions, with general allegations unsupported by medical or documentary evidence. Her testimony, along with that of her mother (an interested witness without personal knowledge), was found unreliable. The so-called independent witness failed to establish himself as an eyewitness, having admitted he was not present during the alleged incident and did not report key details in his police statement. The police witnesses only performed official duties without personal investigation or knowledge of the incident, offering no substantive support to the prosecution's case. Further, the panch witnesses were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution's version or the contents of the panchnama. Therefore, the overall evidence was insufficient to establish the offences alleged. Given the inconsistencies and lack of reliable and direct evidence, the courts below justifiably acquitted the respondents and dismissed the application.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts, it appears that no allegations of mental and physical harassment under Section 498A of the IPC or demand of dowry under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have been proved. In this regard, the Court deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamal v. State of Guujarat., Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:29:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/571/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined reported in 2025 INSC 504 and Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, reported in 2024 INSC 953, wherein at paragraph 28, the Court observed as follows:
"28.The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them."
13. So far as the other Sections, i.e., 452, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC are concerned, the prosecution has not produced sufficient evidence to prove the offences.
14. Learned trial Court has recorded the conviction and the learned Appellate Court has also cross-checked the findings with the evidence on record and thus, the learned trial Court and learned Appellate Court have not committed any error of law and this Court has not noticed any perversity in the findings and as there are concurrent findings by both the Courts below, interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not permissible. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:29:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/571/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204 conjointly with the observations made hereinabove as regards there being no any perversity in the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, no interference is required.
15. This Court has considered the reasons by the learned Trial Court in support of its order and must give its own reasons to reject those reasons. It should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and the fact that the trial Judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. In brief, the Appellate Court should not disturb an order of acquittal except on very cogent grounds. Reference is required to be made in case of Mathai Mathews vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1970) 3 SCC 772 and in case of Umedbhai Jadavbhai v.s State of Gujarat reported in 1978 SCC (Cri) 108.
16. This Court has considered the reasons provided by both the trial and appellate courts in support of their orders. The presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the concurrent findings of acquittal. The trial Judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses firsthand. Therefore, this Court finds no cogent grounds to disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts. Hence, the present application stands dismissed in limine. Rule discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 21 21:29:37 IST 2025