Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sureshchandra Umiyashankar Raval on 8 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2127/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2127 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SURESHCHANDRA UMIYASHANKAR RAVAL & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BC DAVE(245) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 08/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. When the matter is taken up for final hearing, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni, appearing for the State, as well as the learned advocate Mr. B.C. Dave, appearing for the accused that the parties have already settled the matter and as per the settlement, the accused - husband and the complainant - wife have divorced and both of them have remarried.
2. The present appeal filed by the Appellant-State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.07.2009 Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2127/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Sessions Case Nos.84 of 2008 and 124/2009, whereby the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 498(A), 313, 504, 506(2), 507 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short, "the IPC") and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prevention Act, 1961.
3. The case of the prosecution emerges from the complaint given by the wife of the accused - Raval Vishal Sureshchandra (Session Case No.84 of 2008) on 09.06.2006 alleging that he had promised her to take to London, however, he did not do so and he was residing with another girl. The allegations levelled against the other accused in Sessions Case No.124 of 2007, are against the mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, relate to physical and mental harassment. It is also alleged that they had also demanded dowry time and again, which was given to them as per their demand. Accordingly, an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 498(A), 313, 504, 506(2), 507 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prevention Act, 1961. Subsequently, additional charge was framed for the offence under Section 313 of the IPC on the allegations levelled by the complainant that she was forced to have miscarriage by the accused without her consent
4. The respondents-accused were charged and tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1 st Fast Track Court, Mehsana in Sessions Case Nos.124 of 2007 & 84 of 2008, whereby the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2127/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined 31.07.2009 has acquitted all the respondents-accused, inter alia holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
5. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under :-
6. The complainant-Punamben Vishakumar Raval is residing at Mehsana. Her father has retired from Dudh Sagar Dairy on 29.12.2005 and her mother is serving with Primary School at village -Aloda. After her graduation, the complainant registered her name with Shah & Jadeja Marriage Bureau for marriage along with bio-data, photographs, horoscope, education details etc., and pursuant to that on 25.09.2005, the respondents- accused along with other relative visited the house of the complainant and stated that the respondent accused No.5 is residing at London and if the horoscope is matched then, they will proceed further.
7. On 02.10.2005, the complainant and respondent-accused met each other and on 13.10.2005, the engagement was performed. Thereafter, the respondent-accused No.1 demanded Rs.25,000/- for the purchase of marriage items and asked the father of the complainant to send complainant with them for purchase.
8. On 23.10.2005, marriage took place between the complainant and the respondent-accused No.5, at that time, golden ornaments, silver ornaments, clothes etc. totaling to Rs.3,00,000/- were given.
Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2127/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined
9. After the marriage, the marriage was registered on 29.10.2005. Since the respondent-accused No.5 was gong to London on 06.11.2005, the accused demanded Rs.1,00,000/- from the father of the complainant, which the father of the complainant gave it and then, the respondent-accused No.5 left Ahmedabad stating the complainant will be called at London within a period of one month. Thereafter, the accused started giving mental and physical torture to her. After one month, the complainant received phone call from the respondent-accused No.5, wherein the complainant was informed that the accused No.5 is residing with one Asmita and asked the complainant to give divorce, at that time, the complainant was pregnant. Thereafter again, the accused started giving mental and physical torture and also beat her so that she leaves the house and give divorce, as a result of which, the complainant fell down and without her consent, accused aborted her child and the said fact was informed to the complainant by her parents.
10. On 10.03.2006, the accused assaulted her and deserted her from the house and, hence, she went to her parental home and informed about the incident. On 22.03.2006, the respondent-accused No.5 called the complainant and asked Rs.10,00,000/-. On 22.04.2006, when the complainant and her father had gone to the residence of the accused, they asked them to write on the stamp paper of Rs.100/- that if something untoward incident happens, they will not be responsible. On inquiry being made at the residence of Ashmita, they came to know that Vishal and Asmita had gone to London. Thus, the Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2127/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined accused knowing fully well that the respondent-accused No.5 is having relationship with Asmita, they performed marriage between the respondent-accused No.5 and the complainant and then the accused started giving mental and physical torture to her on the pretext of dowry and also demanding more dowry and thereby committed alleged offences.
11. In pursuance of the above allegations of the first informant, First Information Report was lodged with the Mehsana Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 498(A), 313, 504, 506(2), 507 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of Dowry Prevention Act, being FIR CR No.1-180 of 2006.
12. Accordingly, the charge were framed on 17.02.1997, the Trial Court after considering the ocular as well as documentary evidence has acquitted the all the accused for the offences levelled against them vide judgment and order dated 31.07.2009 passed in Sessions Case Nos.84 of 2008 and 124 of 2009. In all total, nine witnesses have been examined.
13. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni, has submitted that subsequently the offence under Section 313 of the IPC was registered on the allegations levelled by the complainant she was forced to have miscarriage by the accused without her consent, the said charge was framed and ultimately, the Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused for the said offence also.
14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of Ranchod Babaji Tahkore (PW-1), who is Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2127/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined examined at Exh.32 with the son of the deceased, has not supported the case of the prosecution. However, he has submitted that the evidence of Dr.Tejas Vinodbhai Dave (PW-2) is established that the offence under Section 313 of the IPC. He has placed reliance on the evidence of the complainant - Punamben Narendrabhai Patel (PW-3), examined at Exh.45 and has submitted that her evidence proves the offence. Similarly, he has placed reliance on the evidence of Narendra Kumar Keshavlal Patel (PW-5) examined at Exh.61, who has supported the case of prosecution. Reliance is also placed by him on the prosecution witness - Jai Prakash Ramjibhai Patel (PW-7) at Exh.64, who is PSI and Ramjibhai Dungarbhai Parmar (PW-65), who is also the Investigating Officer. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may be allowed and the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court may be set aside.
15. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Dave, appearing for the respondents - accused has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court acquitting the respondents- accused may not be interfered with as the same is appropriately passed. He has further submitted that this is a case of no evidence and the same has been appreciated by the Trial Court while acquitting the respondent-accused.
16. We have perused the evidence ocular as well as documentary. We have also perused the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.
17. We may first deal with the offence punishable under Section 313 of the IPC. The allegations levelled by the complainant (PW-3)is that the accused forced her to have a Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2127/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined miscarriage on 02.12.2005 since the in-laws had pushed her in the bathroom deliberately and accordingly, when she taken to the doctor, it was reported that she had suffered a miscarriage. The Trial Court while answering the Issue No.4, has categorically perused the documentary as well as oral evidence, more particularly the evidence of the complaint herself. It is pertinent to note that the FIR has been registered on 09.06.2006, whereas as per the evidence of the complainant herself the incident has occurred with regard to miscarriage on 02.12.2005.
18. At this stage, we may refer to the deposition of Dr.Tejas Vinodbhai Dave (PW-2), who is examined at Exh.34. He has specifically stated that when the complainant was examined by him on 02.12.2005, she was having one and half months pregnancy and accordingly, he has also prescribed some medicines. Thereafter, she was again examined on 16.12.2005, and she was having two months pregnancy. Again she was examined on 26.12.2005 by him and at that time, he has noticed that there was pregnancy and miscarriage had already happened, of which he was not having any information. He has further asserted in his deposition that the miscarriage has not happened in his hospital and accordingly, the medical treatment papers were given to her. Thus, the evidence does not reveal about the status of fetus between 16.12.2005 to 26.12.2005 and the doctor has specifically deposed that the miscarriage has not occurred in his hospital. Thus, in absence of any reliable evidence to support the allegations levelled by the complainant for forceful miscarriage, the trial court has not committed any error in Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2127/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined acquitting the accused. The complainant appears to be unreliable and, it appears that the allegations are only leveled to wreck personal vengeance.
19. So far as the allegations levelled by the complainant of mental and physical harassment, the Trial Court while answering the Issue No.2 has held that no such offence is established and the allegations levelled by the complainant were vague and general in nature. The complainant has alleged that the husband though had promised her that he would call her to London within a period of month, however he did not do so instead of he started residing with another girl. The Trial Court has recorded that the complainant was not having any VISA so she could have gone within one month after her marriage to London. The Trial Court has disbelieved her version about the allegations levelled against the accused husband alleging breach of trust as no evidence worth the name was established on record proving the offence, for which, the accused were tried. It is also coming on record that the marriage was solemnized through Marriage Bureau and the evidence does not suggest that the accused had demanded any money or dowry from her. The marriage between the accused husband and the complainant was solemnized on 29.10.2005 and it is alleged that thereafter, the husband went to London on 06.11.2005 and at that time, he promised the complainant that he would take her to London within a period of one month. Thus, the allegations for mental and physical harassment and demand of dowry are not proved by the prosecution. The FIR is also registered at a belated stage and no satisfactory explanation is coming forth for the delay in Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2127/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined registering the FIR.
20. It is settled legal precedent that unless there is perversity or the findings of the Trial Court were contrary to the material on record and palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable, the Appellate Court cannot set aside such findings of the Trial Court while exercising powers under section 378 of Cr.PC(vide 1996 (9) SCC 225 in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat)
21. For the foregoing discussion, we unhesitatingly hold that the reasons given by the Trial Court for recording the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondents-accused, are convincing. The present appeal fails. The same stands dismissed.
22. Record and proceedings, if any, shall be sent back to concerned Trial Court, forthwith.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J) MAHESH/03 Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:14 IST 2025