Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajesh Jayantilal Dave on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 280 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJESH JAYANTILAL DAVE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SHIRISH R PATEL(5605) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.03.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.18, Ahmedabad (City), in Sessions Case No.92 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").
2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court, is that, on 24.11.2005, the deceased - Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Kalyaniben, who has married with Rajeshbhai Jayantilal Dave on 14.07.2005, has died by hanging herself in the house due to mental and physical tortured by the in-laws within a short span of marriage. Therefore, the complainant has lodged a complaint before the Odhav Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. After 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.92 of 2007. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
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 Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court :
8.1 On considering the testimony of P.W.4 - Anilkumar Keshavlal Trivedi - the Complainant - the father of the deceased, who has been examined vide Exh.15, has deposed that the deceased had last come on 05.10.2005, but the said fact has not been stated by him in his police statement. The said witness has also deposed that he would not have complained if the police had not asked for his statement. In his cross-examination, the said witness has stated that the complainant had filed the complaint only because he was suspicious.Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 8.2 The sister of the deceased viz., Jignashaben Pareshkumar Shukla has been examined as P.W.5, vide Exh.19 and there are lot of contradictions on the fact that the deceased had called her and informed her about the harassment that has been meted out to her by the accused; and that the said statement has not been given by the said witness before the police. The said witness had no personal knowledge of harassment and the said witness has also stated that she had informed her father to file the police complaint and therefore the police complaint is filed. 8.3 Further, if the testimony of the brother of the deceased - Kalpesh Anilbhai Trivedi - P.W.6, who has been examined vide Exh.20, is seen, the said witness also does not state that there was any fight on 04.11.2005 and even there are lot of contradictions and discrepancies in his testimony. It has also come on the record that he had not informed in his police statement that he had visited earlier the residence of the in-laws of the deceased and met the deceased. The prosecution has also not proved that the said witness had stated that the deceased had informed him about any harassment by in-laws.
8.4 From the deposition of P.W.7 - Dr.Chunilal Jujalal Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Kumavat at Exh.22, who had carried out the postmortem, it has come on record that the death is due to hanging. The PSI - Sabursinh Vaghaji Jhala has been examined vide Exh.26 as P.W.8 and he had taken the complaint and done the panchanama of place of incident.
8.5 The panchas of the panchnama of scene of offence i.e. Vijaysinh Dilipsinh Waghela and Natubhai Kanjibhai Parmar have been examined vide Exhs.10 and 12, as P.W.1 and P.W.2, respectively, have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile.
Vide Exh.13, the prosecution has examined the witness to the inquest panchnama i.e. Varshaben Navinchandra Parmar - P.W.3, whereby it has come on the record that she is staying across the house of the husband of the deceased and she did not hear any quarrel. 8.6 The prosecution has also not been able to prove that the father or other family members of the deceased have ever raised any complaint about the harassment which was done to the deceased before the date of filing of the complaint.
8.7 It has also come on record that the incident had Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined happened in Ahmedabad and the complainant was staying at Wadhwan, District Surendranagar and after hearing the unfortunate incident of her daughter hanging herself, the complainant has not filed any complaint for 26 days as the incident had taken place on 24.11.2005 and the complaint has been filed on 20.12.2005.
8.8 It has also come on record that when the dead body was handed over to the brother of the deceased, he has stated at that time that he does not want to file any complaint.
8.9 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.
9.1 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 Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined "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 follow cannot be said to be instigation.
9.2 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.
Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined
10. 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, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.
11. 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.
12. 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 Court in the case of Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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."
13. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
14. 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 Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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."
15. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 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 Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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.
16. 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 Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 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 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 Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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."
17. 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.
18. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on my 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.
19. In view of the above and for the reasons stated Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) SRILATHA Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:46 IST 2025