Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shirilbhai S/O Robart ... on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1613 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHIRILBHAI S/O ROBART PUNJALALCHRISTIAN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RM PARMAR(591) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. AMIT R PARMAR(16665) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 (Code), assailing the judgment and order dated 29.02.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.323 of 2007, acquitting the respondent- original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 323, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2.1. The complainant (deceased) Bidiyaben registered a Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined complaint (i.e. Dying Declaration) being I-C.R.No.80/2006 with Gomtipur Police Station, Ahmedabad against the accused stating that on 07.05.2006, the deceased had love marriage with the accused ten years prior to the incident. During the marriage life with each other, two children were born i.e. one elder daughter and one younger son. Her mother Madhuben is residing at Shankarpur-ni-chawli.
2.2. On 07.05.2006, in the afternoon, after taking a lunch, the deceased was talking with her son and the accused was sleeping in the house and at about 02:00 p.m., her son has gone out with other children for playing. It is the case of the prosecution that since last four years, the accused was not doing any job and was suspicious about the character of the deceased and beaten the deceased. The accused was causing mental and physical harassment to the deceased and because of that, since last three months, the deceased went to her parental home. The accused has filed an application C.R.80/2006 and after compromising with each other, the accused agreed with the deceased for doing a job and not to quarrel with the deceased and thereafter, the deceased came to stay with the accused. But, thereafter, the accused suspected on her character and also started quarrel with the deceased. On the day of incident, at about 02:45 hours, the Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined accused subjected her to cruelty, thereby, induced her to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her and set herself ablaze by match stick.
2.3. Thereafter, since the deceased was screaming, the accused came to extinguish the fire. But as the deceased received burn injuries on the body, the accused took the deceased to the L.G. Hospital for treatment. During that period, her mother Madhuben met them near Gate of Pratapnagar and she also went to the Hospital with them. During the period of treatment, the deceased expired. Therefore, the deceased registered a complaint against the accused with Gomtinagar Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 306 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. After usual investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.323 of 2007. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment.
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.
6. I have heard the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and also gone through the oral and documentary evidence, independently and dispassionately.
7. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, and considering the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court:
(i) From the oral evidence of P.W.1 i.e. Doctor Ramlakhan Banwari, who has done the post mortem, he has deposed that from the injuries he cannot say whether the same is suicidal, homicidal or accidental Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined and he has also deposed that there is no injury on the head of the deceased.
(ii) The Trial Court has also taken into consideration the testimony of P.W.2 i.e. Doctor Narendra Suryakant Mahashadkar, who has treated the deceased on 07.05.2006 and in his deposition also he has stated that there is no injury on the head and the deceased was conscious when he had treated her. He has also deposed that there was 41% burn injury on the deceased and on the face and neck there were 5% burn injury, in the chest there was 14% injury and 17% injury on the lower body and overall there was 41% injury on the deceased when he had treated the deceased.
(iii) It comes on record that the accused was also treated by said Doctor and while the accused was trying to save the deceased, he got injured by the said burns and he had 14% burn injury on his body.
(iv) Vide Exhibit 22, the testimony of P.W.3-Dharmeshbhai alias Montubhai was taken, he was the manager at the factory in which the deceased was working and it is coming on record that the deceased had stopped going to the work for one week before the date of incident.
(v) Vide Exhibit 23, the P.W.4 has been examined. In his deposition, at para no.6 he has deposed that it is true that deceased and the Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined accused were loving each other and there was no mental harassment by the accused. The said brother vide Exhibit 23 has also stated that on the date of incident, he did not talk to his sister.
(vi) Vide Exhibit-24, the mother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-5 and she also does not dispute that she had taken the deceased to the hospital on the date of incident i.e. on 07.05.2006, and all along the deceased had not stated about any harassment by the accused.
(vii) The prosecution has also examined vide Exhibit-26, P.W.6-
Shilaben Dahyabhai Parmar who had not supported the case of the prosecution vide Exhibit 27 the Sister of the accused has been examined and she has also not supported the case of the prosecution.
(viii) The P.S.I. who reached the L.G.Hospital on 07.05.2006 has been examined vide Exhibit 28. The Executive Magistrate who had taken the Dying Declaration statement of the accused at 22.10 hours has been examined vide Exhibit 32 at P.W.9 and in his deposition, it comes out that the accused was sleeping at the time when the incident happened and in his deposition it comes out that there were some small quarrels happening between the deceased and the accused and only to frighten the accused, the deceased had poured kerosene on her and herself lighted the matchstick and tried to burn Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined herself. The Executive Magistrate has also noted that there was no demand of dowry from the deceased.
8. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.
9. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence connecting the accused with the incident and there are contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive of the accused behind the incident is not established. The trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
10. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is down by the Apex Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93:
(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
11. In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. 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. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined follow cannot be said to be instigation.
12. In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (1) Crimes 347 (SC), the observations are made with regard to abetment of suicide. It has been held that in order to bring a case within purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in commission of said offence, person who is said to have abetted commission of suicide must have played active role by act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of suicide. It has been further observed that the act of abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved and established by prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. It is further observed that to satisfy requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that deceased was left with no other option, except to commit suicide.
13. The trial Court has rightly held that there was no positive evidence on record to prove that the accused by way of the conduct or spoken words, overtly or covertly, actually aided and abetted or instigated the deceased in such a manner that it leaves no other option for the deceased but to commit suicide.
14. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
15. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."
16. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
17. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined 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 emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1613/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined 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."
18. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
19. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on our careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents - accused for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal.
20. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:25:38 IST 2025