Gujarat High Court
Chaudhary Pravinbhai Lavjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 3 December, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2291 of 2008
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2756 of 2008
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2757 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
CHAUDHARY PRAVINBHAI LAVJIBHAI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DK CHAUDHARI(5361) for the Appellant(s) No. 2
MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Criminal Appeal No.2291 of 2008 is by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Patan on 29.08.2008 in Special Atrocity Case No.24 of 2007. The proceeding was under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Page 1 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and Section 3(i)(x)(xi) of the of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Atrocities Act"). Accused No.1 came to be convicted under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506(2). While accused No.2 was convicted under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 114 of the I.P.C.
1.1 During the pendency of the appeal accused No.1 - Chaudhary Pravinbhai Lavjibhai, husband of the complainant died, therefore, his name was deleted from the cause title of all three appeals and the matters stood abated against him.
1.2 Criminal Appeal No.2756 of 2008 filed by the State challenges the order of acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(x) and (xi) of the Atrocities Act making a prayer to set aside the acquittal. While Criminal Appeal No.2757 of 2008 by the State is with a prayer to Page 2 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined enhance the sentence in the conviction judgment.
3. The appellant as accused No.2 - Chaudhary Rajiben Wife of Lavjibhai Bababhai and as mother-
in-law of complainant, was sentenced for three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 114 of I.P.C. and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine further seven days simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 323 read with Section 114 I.P.C., the fine of Rs.300/- was ordered with default stipulation of undergoing seven days simple imprisonment in failure to pay the fine. Similar order was passed for the offence punishable under Section 504 I.P.C. of Rs.300/- fine and in failure to serve seven days simple imprisonment. 3.1 The endorsement on record by the Superintendent of Sessions Court, Patan shows that both the accused had paid the fine amount. Page 3 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Rs.900/- was received from the present appellant by receipt No.45 on 29.08.2008.
4. Learned advocate Mr.D.K. Chaudhari submitted that since the appellant No.1 is no more, the case would now has to be analysed only for the purpose of appellant No.2 - mother-in-law of the complainant. Advocate Mr. Chaudhari for the appellants stated that the complaint itself would suggests that at no point of time, the complainant had stayed with mother-in-law. The allegations on the face of record qua the present appellant as mother-in-law stands proved as false, inspite of that, learned Trial Court Judge has failed to consider the same in favour of the present appellant-accused.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari submitted that the case has been made grave just because of the fact that the complainant belongs to a community, which falls under the Atrocities Act. Page 4 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined 4.2 Advocate Mr. Chaudhari further stated that the complaint does not appear to have been independently filed, as the family members and President of the caste appears to have filed the complaint. Advocate Mr. Chaudhari stated that deposition of the witness as of A.S.I. clarifies that the complaint was dictated by Ambalal Tabhani, the President of the community. 4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari stated that it was a love marriage and the marriage was registered at Surat. The complainant and deceased appellant both were staying together. Out of their matrimonial life, they have two daughters, and the fact appears to have been got up since the settlement could not be arrived at. Advocate Mr. Chaudhari stated that the complainant was staying in Nari Suraksha Gruh at Ranuj and till that period and thereafter too, there was no occasion for the complainant to stay with the Page 5 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined mother-in-law.
4.4 Advocate Mr. Chaudhari submitted that as per his instruction at present the complainant along with two daughters is with mother-in-law. Mr. Chaudhari stated that none of the sections would get invoked against the present appellant and the complaint is misuse of law absolutely against the mother-in-law.
5. Countering the arguments, learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt submitted that the complaint suggests that after staying in the Nari Suraksha Gruh, the complainant had gone to the house of the appellant at Ranuj Chaudhary Vas; at that time, mother-in-law was present there and verbally abused her by passing casteist remarks, and beaten her by fisticuffs, and had asked her to leave the house. Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that remarks were lowering the dignity of the complainant therefore, the sentence which has Page 6 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined been passed appears to be insufficient to the facts of the matter.
5.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that Section 3(i)(x) had been applied in the matter since the complainant was humiliated by her caste within the public view and she was also assaulted and assault was with the intent to dishonour her being member of the Scheduled Caste, she had no option thereafter but to go to Mahila Suraksha Centre and take the assistance of the community representative, with whose support she could file the complaint. APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that the case could not be considered as falsely drawn against the appellant.
6. Having heard the arguments canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari for the appellant- accused and learned APP Ms. Bhatt for the appellant State in the above referred captioned matters, the case remains to be examined for the Page 7 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined appellant as mother-in-law. Section 3(i)(x) and Section (xi) of the Atrocities Act is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"3(1)(x) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty."
7. Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act intends to protect members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in case where they are intentionally insulted or intimidated with the intent to humiliate them in any case within the public view.
8. In background of the arguments and the facts and evidence, the examination would be for the view point as to whether the offence has been committed in a place within public view, as Page 8 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined contemplated under the Atrocities Act. 8.1 The legal position with regard to the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act has been dealt with in the case of Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435. In the said case, the distinction has been made between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if the offence is committed outside the building i.e. in a lawn outside the house and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road outside the boundary wall, then, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view, while if any remark is made inside the building, but some members of the public are there, who are not merely relatives or friends, then it would be an offence since it is in public view.
8.2 In the case of Swaran Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: Page 9 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined "27. Learned counsel then contended that the alleged act was not committed in a public place and hence does not come within the purview of Section 3(1)
(x) of the Act. In this connection it may be noted that the aforesaid provision does not use the expression `public place', but instead the expression used is `in any place within public view'. In our opinion there is a clear distinction between the two expressions.
28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a `Chamar') when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression `place within public view' with the expression `public place'. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) Page 10 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."
8.3 In case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr., (2020) 10 SCC 710.
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swarn Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under:
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been Page 11 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."
9. The complaint given on 02.01.2007 produced at Exh.18 by the complainant would state that on 25.12.2006, she was staying with her husband at Surat, beside Priyanka Society. It was her love marriage. The marriage was registered at Surat Court. During the course of the marriage, she gave birth to a daughter and at the time of complaint the age of the daughter was one and half month. Since the complainant was having an Page 12 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined infant child hence, she could not go for the labour work and therefore, husband often would verbally abuse her and beat her. However, the husband told her that he had registered the love marriage in the Court only for his own luxury, who would mentally harass her often by passing casteist remark, and was asking her to run away from the home and threatened to kill the child. 9.1 The complainant stated that she was from 'Chamar' community and thereafter she left Surat in a private vehicle and was frightened. On 26.12.2006, she arrived at Patan Mahila Suraksha Gruh at 3:30 in the afternoon and through the Mahila Suraksha Branch Office, she made representation to the Dy.S.P. - K.G. Vaghela. Her brother, mother and the mother-in-law, Chaudhary Rajiben Lavjibhai, resident of Ranuj did not accept her and therefore, she had gone to Nari Suraksha Gruh; there she stayed for four to five days and on 01.01.2007 at 1:30 in the afternoon, Page 13 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined her relative Jayantibhai Manilal of Ranuj took her to Ranuj village from Nari Suraksha Gruh. Thereafter, she went to her father-in-law's house at Chaudharyvas at Ranuj at the house of her husband Chaudhari Pravinbhai Lavjibhai; at that time, the mother-in-law, Chaudhary Rajiben, was present there and she started abusing her by her caste and gave her fist blows and asked her to go away from the house.
9.2 The complainant stated that mother-in-law had uttered unpleasant words connecting her caste lowering her dignity. The mother-in-law had also stated that her children are suffering in the community because of her, therefore, she returned back to Mahila Suraksha Branch, at that time, Head Constable Babiben and L.P.B. Binaben were with her, and thereafter through her brother she had informed the President A.G. Tavani of the 'Minority Community Mahaparisad, Gujarat State', and had come to police Station to file the Page 14 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined complaint.
9.3 According to the complainant, the incident had occurred on 01.01.2007 in the evening between 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the house of her father-in- law. She stated that her husband as well as her mother-in-law both had beaten her with fisticuffs and therefore, she visited the Hospital. At the time of incident her sister was present there, who assisted to relieve her.
9.4 The complaint does not state the date of marriage. The marriage was registered. Accordingly, if that fact is considered, then the husband was aware of the caste of complainant. The complainant was at that time having one and half month child, and while she had given deposition in the Court on 14.07.2008, she had stated that she is pregnant with the another child.
Page 15 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined 9.5 The deposition suggests that the marriage was five years prior to the complaint. The Certificate of Marriage was produced at Exh.16. The place of residence of husband and wife was recorded as Taluka-Chorasi, District Surat, and her original place of residence was recorded as Ranuj Muslimvas, Taluka & District Patan. She in her marriage registration form has shown her status as unmarried. The deposition shows that she was earlier married at village Chaveli Taluka-Chanasma. That fact is not reflected in the marriage registration form, Exh.16. The date of registration of marriage is 15.07.2003. The age of husband was 23 years, while the complainant was of 34 years, as reflected from document Exh.16, the marriage certificate. 9.6 In the deposition, the complainant stated that she was staying along with accused No.1 at Surat and was doing labour work and they were at Surat for about three years, and within this Page 16 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined period, they had a daughter and thereafter lastly for about one year she was at Gandhidham with husband, where her husband was working as a labourer in a soap factory. She stated that accused after drinking alcohol would beat her and mentally harass her, even insulted her by her caste.
9.7 Further evidence of the complainant was that initially she was residing at Surat with accused, where husband was beating and mentally harassing her and thereafter at Ranuj she stayed with her husband at the house. She was not allowed to stay in the house by accused and was removed from the house, by beating her and accusing her by her caste.
9.8 In connection with the present appellant as mother-in-law, the complainant stated that she was insulted by her by casteist remarks and was beaten and removed from the house. She went to Page 17 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Bhagini Samaj at Patan, where she resided for four to five days, but since accused had not come to take her back, therefore, she had filed the complaint.
10. The evidence brings contradiction to the complaint filed. In the complaint it is not stated that she was staying with mother-in-law at Ranuj prior to residing at Bhagini Samaj, Patan. The incident, which she states of being insulted and beaten by mother-in-law is only after she has visited the in-laws house after having resided at Nari Suraksha Gruh, Ranuj for four to five days. She specified the date as 01.01.2007, a day prior to the complaint. According to her on 01.01.2007 her relative Jayanti Manilal of Ranuj took her from Nari Suraksha Gruh to her in-laws house at Chaudharivas. She stated that mother-in-law was present there, abused her by caste and had beaten her and removed her from the house. Page 18 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined 10.1 This fact, as noted in the complaint at Exh.18 does not get co-related with the deposition of the complaint. The evidence rather would say that the complainant had no occasion to stay with mother-in-law prior to filing the complaint, if the complaint, Exh.18 and the deposition are read together. It appears that the daughter-in-law wanted to drag mother-in-law in the matter and had tried to involve husband as well as mother-in-law under the Atrocity Act.
11. From the complaint, it transpires that she had visited the Government Hospital. The certificate at Exh.14 was produced by Doctor Bhagwatiprasad Ramlal Patel. The Doctor had examined the victim - complainant on 02.01.2007 at 8.25 in the night, where she was brought by her real brother with police Yadi from P.S.P. Patan. The history before the Doctor was that she was given kick and fist blows on 01.01.2007 at 4.00 p.m. by Pravin Lavjibhai Chaudhari i.e. her Page 19 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined husband. She has not made any allegation against mother-in-law before the Doctor. Jayantilal Manilal Solanki had accompanied the complainant at the house of accused.
11.1 Jayantilal Manilal, the brother, was examined as P.W.5. The deposition suggests that earlier the complainant had married at Chaneri and she had taken divorce from her husband and thereafter, complainant was staying with her mother at Ranuj, and the complainant married accused No.1 and started staying at Surat, where they stayed for about three years. 11.2 According to the brother for about one or two years, the marriage was going on smoothly. The complainant had given birth to a daughter. Thereafter, he stated that accused had left the complainant alone at Surat, therefore, she had come to Patan with assistance of some person by paying rent and thereafter had gone to Ranuj at Page 20 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined her in-laws place, where accused were not willing to keep her and insulted her by her caste, therefore, the complaint was filed at Bhagini Samaj, and thereafter at the police station. After the complaint, accused had tried to make efforts for settlement, therefore he had left the sister at the in-law's place.
11.3 The brother stated that after three to four months, she was thrown out of the house and during that period she was subjected to harassment. Thereafter, they had filed a case of maintenance, where after settlement she was taken back home. According to brother thereafter for certain period accused and the complainant resided at Gandhidham and again she came back home. The brother as a witness stated that accused were not ready to keep the sister along with them. She got pregnant with another child. Page 21 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined 11.4 The deposition of the brother does not note that he had gone along with the complainant to file the complaint. The brother records that after returning back from Surat she had come to Patan at Ranuj and since the in-laws were not ready to keep her she had given a complaint at Bhagini Samaj and even at the police station. After the settlement the sister again started staying with accused and for about three to four months she stayed with them and then she filed a case of maintenance and after settlement she was taken back.
11.5 All these facts were not disclosed in the complaint, nor the complainant herself stated about these relevant facts. If deposition of the brother is minutely considered, then the facts stated by the complainant and the complaint itself gets falsified. The incident of 01.01.2007, as alleged in the complaint does not get corroboration from the evidence of the Page 22 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined brother. No copy of the case filed under the Maintenance Act has been produced on record to bring a corroboration of the fact that the complainant was subjected to atrocities lowering down her dignity by insulting her making casteist remark.
11.6 The allegation of insulting her and mistreating her by her caste is only of the day dated 01.01.2007, where she alleged that the husband as well as mother-in-law had beaten her, while the evidence of the Doctor before whom the history was given, the complainant had not alleged of any such beatings by mother-in-law.
12. Ambalal Jethabhai Tabhani was examined as P.W.8 at Exh.28, who was the president of 'Soshit Laghumati Samaj Mahaparisad', Gujarat Pradesh. According to him, the complainant had met her at Nari Sanrakshan Gruh, Patan. She informed that she had come from Surat and was thrown out of the Page 23 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined house. The witness had made the representation in the institution and had asked the husband to settle the issue, and since the complainant, her brother and mother were not willing to settle, therefore, the complaint was filed, and when it was asked to give complaint, he had gone to police station. In the cross-examination, he stated that he was a leader of 'Dalit Samaj', however, he has no knowledge about the incident. 12.1 Dy.S.P., who is authorised to undertake the investigation, as per statutory provision of the Atrocities Act, was examined as P.W.9 at Exh.29. The Investigation Officer - Savjibhai Khatuji Ninama was on duty on 02.01.2007 and he was given the depute order by P.S.O. of A.S. Cr.No.1/2007. He produced the depute order at Exh.25 and referred to the complaint, Exh.18. He had recorded statement of the relatives of complainant and visited the place of incident. Page 24 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined 12.2 The panchnama was produced at Exh.20 and medical certificate was procured in connection with the complainant. The copy of the marriage certificate he referred as Exh.17. He referred about the scheduled caste of the complainant. He had filed the charge sheet against accused. According to him, surrounding the place of incident, there are house of Patels. He denied the suggestion that he had not recorded the statements of the neighbours and affirmed that since the neighbours were not supporting, therefore, they have not been cited in the charge sheet.
12.3 The fact, if considered of the allegation made in the complaint that she was thrown out of the house on 01.01.2007, certainly that incident would have been observed by the neighbours if it had so happened, but none of the neighbours supported the incident, hence they could not be considered as witness by the Investigating Page 25 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Officer.
13. In the deposition the complainant stated that earlier she had filed the maintenance application at Patan Court and there the matter got settled. She stated that husband was not ready to keep her as a wife, and said about being pregnant, and has given the evidence of this being second marriage. In the cross-examination, she affirmed that since she had married a person from Chaudhari community, the members of her community got offended, and also stated that the persons from her parental side were not keeping relation with her.
13.1 The complainant affirmed that after the marriage she was staying at Surat with accused and also affirmed the fact that her mother-in-law was staying all alone at Ranuj. She stayed for about six days at Bhagini Samaj. She also affirmed that after the settlement in the Page 26 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined maintenance case, when it was denied to stay at Ranuj, they had started residing at Thara. These all facts, which have been brought on record clearly suggests that daughter-in-law had no occasion to reside with mother-in-law, who was residing all alone.
13.2 A deliberate attempt has been made to bring in presence of the sister - Jadiben Manilal (P.W.4), who refers to the love marriage of the complainant with accused No.1, and stated that after the marriage the sister was staying with accused at Surat and since she was of Schedule Caste, she was beaten and was removed from the house from Surat. According to the sister, the complainant had come to Ranuj at accused house. She was returning back from labour work, at that time, she had seen crowd near accused place and accused were beating her, and after releasing her sister she had taken her to the Bhagini Samaj, where she stayed for about a week, and when the Page 27 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined accused had not come back to take the sister home, they had filed the complaint. 13.3 The evidence of the sister, thus, runs contrary to the complaint. The sister is not specifying the date on which she had seen the accused beating her. According to sister after the beatings, when complainant was removed from the house she was sent to Bhagini Samaj and there she stayed for about a week and then complaint was filed, which is totally contrary to the complaint.
14. On analysis of the evidence, as referred herein above, the brother or sister or the representative of the community Ambalal Jethabhai Tabhani (P.W.8), does not refer or depose about any such casteist remarks or any beatings by the mother-in-law, and the medical record suggests that it was the husband, who had beaten the wife, who is now no more. The case against the mother- Page 28 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined in-law does not stand proved, neither under Section 498A, nor under Section 323 or 504 I.P.C. In the same way, no case of Section 3(i)(x) and
(xi) of the Atrocities Act stands proved.
15. The learned Trial Court Judge has failed to analyse the evidence of the witnesses minutely. The appreciation of the evidence is required to be made taking into consideration the complaint filed. The witnesses have given a contrary version. It appears that since the husband had not taken her back, the complaint came to be filed. No case against the mother-in-law could be proved.
16. In view of the observations and reasons given herein above, Criminal Appeal No.2291 of 2008 is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Patan on 29.08.2008 in Special Atrocity Case No.24 of 2007 is set aside qua Appellant No.2 - Chaudhary Page 29 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Rajiben wife of Lavjibhai Bababhai, mother-in- law. She is acquitted from all the charges. Bail bound stands discharged.
16.1 The State could not prove the case for even enhancement of the sentence or under the Atrocities Act, thus, Criminal Appeal No.2756 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No.2757 of 2008 stand dismissed.
16.2 Registry is directed to send the Record and Proceedings back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj/ suppl.(2) Page 30 of 30 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:05:04 IST 2025