Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Urmilaben Ishwarbhai Naranbhai Dho. ... on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1257 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
--- No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
URMILABEN ISHWARBHAI NARANBHAI DHO. PATEL
================================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 4.8.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.2 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, whereby the respondent, who is the sole accused in the said case, was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
2. Facts of the prosecution case may be delineated as follows:-
2.1 Kalpanaben (herein after referred to as "the deceased") and the accused-Urmilaben are relatives. The deceased and the accused are the great-grand daughters-in-law of PW-7.
Both the accused and the deceased are residing in side by side houses and they are neighbours to each other. PW-7, the great-grand mother-in-law of the deceased has been residing with the deceased in her house. It is stated that the accused got suspicion that her husband, who is examined as PW-11, got illegal contact with the deceased and that they both had an extra-marital affair.
2.2 So, on 26.7.2012 at about 10 a.m., the accused went to the house of the deceased and informed her that a poisonous snake is in the house of the accused and asked her to come to her house. So, the deceased accompanied the accused to her house. PW-7, who is her great-grand mother-in-law, was available in the house at that time. Thereafter, PW-7 heard some shouts of the deceased from the house of the accused. Later, she came to know that the deceased died in the house of the accused with some injuries sustained by her. Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 2.3 PW-8 is the husband of the deceased. While he was at his workplace, he received information from his brother-in-law over phone that some incident took place in the house of the accused. On receipt of the said information, he immediately reached the house of the accused and he found his wife, who is the deceased, in a pool of blood in the kitchen room the house of the accused. PW-11 is the husband of the accused. While he was at his workplace, he also received information that some incident took place in his house and he immediately reached his house and found the dead-body of the deceased in his house. Thereafter, PW-8, who is the husband of the deceased lodged report with the police stating that somebody caused injuries to his wife and ran away. Police registered the said report as an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and investigated the case.
2.4 Inquest was held over the dead-body of the deceased. Thereafter, autopsy was also held over the dead-body of the deceased. The doctor, who is examined as PW-6, opined that the injured died due to injuries on her neck caused with sharp weapon. Scene of offence observation was also made in the presence of the mediators and a panchnama was prepared at Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined that time. One knife was found at the scene of offence containing blood stains. It was seized in the presence of the mediators and was sent for chemical examination to forensic science laboratory. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were also seized and they were also sent for examination to the forensic science laboratory.
2.5 Thereafter, the accused was arrested on 27.7.2012. On the disclosure statement given by the accused that she would show the place where she has hidden the axe used by her to cause injuries to the deceased, she led the investigation officer and the mediators to the place where axe was hidden. It is stated that axe was recovered at the instance of the accused and it was seized in the presence of the mediators and it is stated that the said axe contains blood stains. It was also sent for chemical examination to the FSL.
2.6 It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused has made an extra-judicial confession before her husband, who is examined as PW-11, stating that she killed the deceased. Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 2.7 As the investigation revealed that the accused got suspicion over the deceased that she got an illicit intimacy with the husband of the accused and that they both had extra- marital affair that the accused called the deceased to her house on the pretext that a poisonous snake is in her house and, thereafter, hacked her with an axe and caused fatal injury on her neck and other parts of the body and thereby killed her, the police has filed charge-sheet against the accused, after completion of investigation, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2.8 In the trial Court charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the accused and the same was read over and explained to her. She denied the said charge and claimed to be tried.
2.9 During the course of trial, prosecution got examined PW- 1 to PW-12 witnesses and got marked 19 exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused. 2.10 At the end of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Court found the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and acquitted her of the said charge by the impugned judgment.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred present appeal challenging the validity of the said judgment of acquittal.
4. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard Ms.Krina Calla, learned APP for the State. Despite service of notice, the accused did not appear before the Court and she has not turned up for hearing. In order to give her a fair opportunity, we have ordered to list the matter, as per order dated 21.7.2025, to this date i.e. on 22.7.2025 for hearing. Today also, the accused did not turn up for hearing. Therefore, as it is an old appeal of the year 2014 and as it is listed on our Board under the caption "for final hearing of critically old matters of 2011 to 2020", we are not inclined to adjourn the hearing of the appeal and decided to dispose of the appeal on merits as per the material available on record. So, we have carefully perused the evidence and the material available on record and subjected the evidence to strict judicial scrutiny. Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
5. The entire case of the prosecution purely rested on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence of any eye witness in proof of the fact that the accused hacked the deceased either with the knife or with axe and caused the fatal injuries to her, which resulted into her death. So, the prosecution is completely relying upon circumstantial evidence to prove its case against the accused. According to the prosecution, it relied on the following circumstances:-
(i) That the accused got motive to kill the deceased as she got suspicion that the deceased got an illicit intimacy and extra-marital affair with the husband of the accused, who is PW-11 and as such she bore grudge against her and killed her.
(ii) The accused came to the house of the deceased, who is her neighbour, and took the deceased to her house on the pretext that there is a poisonous snake in her house and the deceased accompanied her to the house and PW-
7, who is their great-grand mother-in-law has witnessed the same.
Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
(iii) Thereafter the dead-body of the deceased was found in a pool of blood with injuries on her body in the kitchen room of the house of the accused.
(iv) A knife was found at the scene of offence in the house of the accused and also blood-stained axe was recovered at the instance of the accused on disclosure statement given by her.
(v) The accused has given an extra-judicial confession before her husband, who is examined as PW-11, that she killed the deceased.
6. Before considering the evidence relating to said circumstances, at the very outset, it is to be noticed that as per the settled law, in a case purely based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove and establish each and every circumstance relied on by it with legal and cogent evidence without there being any missing link in the chain of events and the circumstances relied on by it. Any missing link in the chain of circumstances would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The proved circumstances must also lead to an irresistible conclusion that the accused and the accused alone and none-else is the culprit, who has committed the murder of Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined the deceased. The said proved circumstances must also be consistent with the guilt of the accused and must be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. Bearing in mind the said well settled principles of law relating to appreciation of evidence of a case based on circumstantial evidence, evidence in the present case is to be considered.
7. Though motive is not relevant and it will play no role in a case based on direct evidence in a criminal trial, but in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays a vital role and, more particularly, when the prosecution has come up with a specific motive attributing the same to the accused to commit the crime of murder, the prosecution has to prove the said motive with acceptable legal evidence to the satisfaction of the Court.
8. In the instant case, the motive that was attributed by the prosecution to the accused is that she got suspicion that the accused got an illegal contact and an extra-marital affair with PW-11, who is the husband of the accused and as such she has bore grudge against the deceased and committed murder of her. But except making a bald assertion to that effect that the Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined accused got suspicion relating to the alleged extra-marital affair between the deceased and PW-11, absolutely not even an iota of evidence was adduced either direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that the accused bore grudge against the deceased on that ground and thereby killed her. On the other hand, all the family members of the deceased and the accused, who are examined as PW-7, great-grand mother-in- law of both the accused and the deceased, PW-8, husband of the deceased and PW-11, husband of the accused, stated that all the family members are having cordial relationship. Nothing is emanating from their testimony that there are any ill- feelings between the accused and the deceased or that the accused bore grudge against the deceased on the alleged ground of suspicion that she got relating to the said illegal affair. Therefore, the very motive that is attributed to the accused by the prosecution to commit murder of the deceased is not proved and established in this case. So the very first circumstance that is relied upon by the prosecution is not proved and established.
9. Learned APP, Ms.Krina Calla, vehemently contended that evidence on record proves that the accused came to the house Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined of the deceased and took her to her house on the pretext that there is a poisonous snake in their house and to help her and this fact is proved by the evidence of PW-7, who is the great- grand mother-in-law and as the dead-body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused with fatal injuries that the accused has to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in her house and as she did not explain the same that it shall be presumed and held that she is the culprit who committed the murder.
10. No doubt, PW-7, who is their great-grand mother-in-law deposed in her evidence that on the date of offence that the accused came to the house of the deceased and took her to her house on the pretext that there is a poisonous snake in her house and that thereafter she heard shouts of the deceased. But she did not say that after she heard the shouts that she went to the house of the accused and has seen the dead-body of the deceased in the house of the accused with any injuries. The immediate response of any prudent person after hearing the shouts of the deceased would be to go to that place, as the house of the accused is only adjoining to the house of the deceased and to find what had happened and why she has shouted. She did not admittedly go to the house of the Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined accused, after hearing the said shouts. So, it is against the natural conduct of a human being. Why she did not visit the house of the accused after hearing the shouts is not explained by her in her evidence. So her evidence is not much useful to prove that the accused hacked the deceased and killed her in her house.
11. PW-8, who is the husband of the deceased, has lodged the FIR in this case. It is important to note that at the earliest point of time, when he lodged the FIR on the same day i.e. on 26.7.2012 at 1.30 in the afternoon, immediately after the incident, he stated in the FIR that somebody hacked his wife and ran away. He did not say in specific terms in the FIR, which is the earliest version, that the accused got suspicion over her and she killed her in her house. But contrary to the said earliest version stated by him in the FIR, he has stated in his evidence, when he was examined as PW-8, that the accused hacked her in her house and killed her. This is a clear omission made by him in the FIR, which is a significant omission, which makes his subsequent version given in his deposition in the Court not only doubtful but false. It is a deliberate improvement made by him in his evidence during the course of trial. When he has stated in the FIR, which was lodged Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined immediately after the incident, that somebody hacked his wife and ran away, his testimony given subsequently in the Court that the accused killed her is not believable and his testimony given to that effect is wholly unreliable. Thus, there is any amount of doubt regarding the fact that the dead-body was found in the house of the accused in a pool of blood. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the panch witnesses relating to the scene of offence observation also did not say that they have seen the dead-body in the house of the accused when they were examined in the Court. So they did not support the case of the prosecution on this vital aspect that the dead-body was found in the house of the accused. They only stated that a knife was found at the scene of offence, which was stained with blood and it was recovered in their presence. This recovery of knife in the house of the accused is also doubtful for the reason that the prosecution is not particular whether the accused has hacked the deceased with a knife or an axe. The prosecution has come up with another version that after the arrest of the accused, she has given a disclosure statement and led them to the place where the axe was hidden with which she hacked the deceased and the axe was recovered at her instance and it is stained with blood. Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
12. So, according to the prosecution, there are now two weapons that is knife and an axe. So they are not certain with which weapon the accused committed the offence. Further it is to be noted that when the said axe was sent for examination by the experts of the FSL, they did not find any blood on the said axe. At the time of recovery, it is stated that there are blood stains on the axe but the expert did not find any blood stains on the axe. So, the very recovery of both the knife and the axe is doubtful and it appears that both weapons are planted in this case to bolster the case of the prosecution.
13. As regards the extra-judicial confession said to have been given by the accused to PW-11, who is her husband, the same is also not convincing and trustworthy. In the statement given by PW-11 before the police, he has stated that the accused only informed him that she killed the deceased but he did not say with which weapon i.e. with knife or axe that she killed her. However, in the deposition given in the Court, he stated that the accused informed him that she killed the deceased with an axe. So this is again a significant omission in the earlier version given before police relating to the weapon used by the accused. It is also an obvious improvement made by him in his Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined evidence during the course of trial. So, it also proves that the said evidence given by him in the Court relating to the weapon used is absolutely false and it makes his testimony wholly unreliable. It is settled law that an extra-judicial confession, by its nature, is a very weak piece of evidence and in order to base conviction on the said evidence of extra-judicial confession, the Court should not find any infirmities relating to extra-judicial confession. In the instant case, on account of omission and inconsistent version from the earlier statement given before the police and the evidence given before the Court by PW-11, his testimony relating to the same is wholly untrustworthy and cannot be relied upon.
14. Further, as regards the fact that the dead-body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused, there is no authentic evidence on record and the evidence of witnesses is inconsistent and not certain. Therefore, it cannot be held with certainty that the prosecution has proved that the dead-body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused. There is also no evidence on record to prove that the accused was found in her house along with dead-body of the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused has to explain as Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined to how the deceased met with homicidal death in her house, when the material fact that the deceased met with homicidal death in the presence or in the company of the accused in her house is not proved. Even if it is a fact that the dead-body was found in the house of the accused, that sole circumstance, by itself, is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of committing murder of the deceased. All the circumstances relied on by the prosecution shall cumulatively be proved. At best, the said fact raises only a high suspicion against the accused. It is the settled law that suspicion however strong it may be, it will never take place of proof and it can never be a substitute for proof in a criminal trial as per our criminal jurisprudence. So, on mere suspicion the accused cannot be held guilty for commission of the said offence.
15. Therefore, none of the circumstances relied on by the prosecution is proved to the satisfaction of the Court with legal, cogent and convincing evidence to arrive at any irresistible conclusion that it is the accused and the accused alone, who is the culprit, who committed murder of the deceased. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. After Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined considering the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same, the trial Court arrived at a right conclusion and recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. The said finding does not suffer from any legal flaw. So, it warrants no interference in this appeal. The impugned judgment of acquittal is perfectly sustainable under law. So, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
16. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 4.8.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.2 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad. Bail bond, if any, of the respondent shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J) Sd/-
(D. M. VYAS, J) R.S. MALEK Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 23:24:02 IST 2025