Gujarat High Court
Laljibhai Galabhai Kaklotar vs State Of Gujarat on 23 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1534 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
LALJIBHAI GALABHAI KAKLOTAR & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MR AJMERI for MR MA KHARADI(1032) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR ROHANKUMAR RAVAL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 23/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1.The appellants No.1-father-in-law and appellant No.2- mother-in-law came to be convicted by the judgment and order dated 19.11.2003 by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No.50 of 2001. The trial against the appellants was under Sections 306, 498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Page 1 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined
2.Learned advocate Mr. M.R. Ajmeri had on an earlier date, produced the death certificate of the appellant No.1-Laljibhai Galabhai Kaklotar, who died on 22.01.2006. The death was ordered to be verified by the police. Today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor tenders before this Court the Report of the Police Inspector, Rajula Police Station. The Talati cum Mantri of Dungar Gram Panchayat has addressed a communication dated 30.06.2025 to the Police Inspector, Rajula Police Station, stating therein of the death of the appellant No.1 on 22.01.2006 and also attaching the Death Certificate of the deceased. The said Report is ordered to be taken on record.
3.In view of the above, the present appeal qua the appellant No.1-Laljibhai Galabhai Kaklotar stands abated. Hence, the present appeal would be for the appellant No.2-Godavriben @ Anjwariben, wife of Laljibhai Galabhai.
Page 2 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined
4.The conviction is under Section 498A IPC where the appellant No.2-mother-in-law was ordered to undergo sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further one month simple imprisonment.
5.Learned advocate Mr. M.R. Ajmeri has submitted of illegality in not appreciating the provisions of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The learned trial Court Judge has committed an error in relying upon the three dying declarations before three different authorities where the cause of suicide has differed. It is submitted that there is no consistency in the statement recorded of deceased-Rekhaben. It is also submitted that the Doctor who had certified the dying declaration recorded by the learned Executive Magistrate is not an authorized Doctor since he was not the treating Doctor who could give a certificate about the fit state of mind of the deceased, where the deceased had sustained 90-95% burns as per the Page 3 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined medical statement of the PW2-Medical Officer-Dr. Ashokbhai Laljibhai Vadher. It is further submitted that there is no specific details of the fact of harassment as alleged by the deceased. The learned Judge has rightly not believed any act of abetment of suicide and therefore, has rightly acquitted both the parents-in-law under Section 306 IPC. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. M.R. Ajmeri has submitted that the cruelty as described under Section 498A IPC has not been proved. The mother of the deceased who had deposed would have no occasion to have a talk with her daughter in the hospital. In addition, earlier also, the daughter had never stated of any harassment from the parents-in-law, to the mother of the deceased and only to create an evidence, the fact of the deceased talking with the mother on that day, during the course of hospitalization, appears to have been raised to rope in the parents-in-law in a false case. Therefore, it was urged, that the present Appeal may be allowed in Page 4 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined favour of the appellant No.2-the mother-in-law.
6.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohankumar Raval has submitted that the evidence of mother is crystal clear and points out the harassment from the mother-in-law to the deceased. The mother- in-law had physically injured the deceased, who had twisted the arms twice and had even rebuked the deceased. PW5-Godavariben Vithalbhai at Exhibit 15 has stated that the deceased was unhappy in her matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the dying declaration is recorded in a conscious state of mind of the deceased. The deceased has stated before the learned Executive Magistrate and has referred to the harassment from the mother-in-law and also of the father-in-law and because of the harassment, the deceased had taken the last step of taking her own life. It is therefore, submitted that the conviction is just and proper.
Page 5 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined
7.Having heard the submissions canvassed and on perusing the records of the case including the deposition of the witnesses, it transpires that PW5- Godavariben Vithalbhai (mother of the deceased) was examined at Exhibit 15, wherein she has stated that the marriage span was three years. She has stated that she received the information about her daughter's self- immolation, and when she reached the hospital at Rajula, she met her daughter, who was conscious and was speaking. Therefore, she enquired from her daughter as to why she had taken such a kind of action, to which the daughter replied, that she was fed up by her mother-in-law and father-in-law, and therefore, she had set herself ablaze. The mother had also deposed that her daughter had informed her that the mother-in-law (the present appellant No.2) had twisted her arms twice and had taunted her. The mother stated that the daughter was unhappy at her matrimonial home. The husband was residing at Surat while the deceased was with her in-laws at Page 6 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined Village Dungar. Further, in the examination-in-chief, the mother had also stated that after marriage when the daughter would visit them at her parental home, the deceased had never informed her about harassment or any other incident. It was for the first time in the hospital, the mother was informed by the daughter about the harassment. In the cross examination, the witness has confirmed that she had not stated before police in her statement about appellant mother-in-law twisting arms of her daughter.
7.1. The evidence of the mother itself makes it clear that prior to the incident of self-immolation, the daughter had never informed about any cruelty or harassment meted out at the hands of the parents-in- law. It also becomes doubtful as to when the mother had a talk with the daughter in the hospital. The evidence on record suggests that the daughter was completely burned and there were 95% burns on the Page 7 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined whole body. The evidence of the mother-in-law twisting the arm has not been verified by the statement before the police. It was for the very first time she gave such evidence in the Court thus such evidence cannot be believed. From the overall examination of the testimony of the mother of the deceased, it could be concluded that the daughter had never informed during the span of marriage about harassment or cruelty. The only evidence which comes on record of twisting of arms twice by the mother-in-law, which was not informed to the parents, has, no reliance corroborative to believe it. The mother has not given any specific incident of cruelty or harassment. There is no specific ground of any such harassment. Thus it could be gathered from the evidence of PW5-mother that there was no continuous form of harassment to be considered as cruelty as defined under Section 498A of IPC.
7.2. PW1-Dr. Babubhai Aalabhai Kalsaiya at Exhibit 7 Page 8 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined had deposed that on 19.03.2001, the deceased was brought before him for treatment, the patient was conscious. The patient had informed her that she got burnt because of the blasting of primus stove. There were about 90% burns and the head area was burnt. In the cross examination, this witness had confirmed that when the patient was brought before him, she was in a conscious state. The certificate issued by the Doctor was produced at Exhibit 8 and accordingly, during the examination, he has found "accidental burns 90% superficial to deep, sparing scalg, some part of buttocks, and foot. Hair burnt partially. G.C. very poor."
7.3. The witness PW2-Dr. Ashokbhai Laljibhai Vadher had examined the deceased on 20.03.2001 at Rajula Government Hospital. He has stated that primary treatment was given and thereafter for further treatment, she was referred to Mahuva. He found 95% burns on the deceased. The Doctor has stated that Page 9 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined after informing the appellants, they started treatment and during course of treatment, the deceased died. Thereafter, this witness and another Dr. S.M. Maani both had conducted post mortem in the Panel. According to their opinion, the deceased had burn injuries all over her body. The opinion as to the cause or probable cause of death was "cause of death is cardio-respiratory arrest due to hypo-volcanic shock due to burns and sepsis." The post mortem report was produced on record at Exhibit 10. During the cross examination, this witness has stated that such kind of injuries could not be caused due to blast from a primus stove or some other lamp and the injuries suffered by the deceased was on account of her suicide.
8.PW3-Vithalbhai Meghjibhai (the father of the deceased) has stated that the marriage of the deceased had taken place three years prior to the date of incident. The father has deposed that the deceased-Radhika had Page 10 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined never informed anything, but stated that she had burnt herself because of the harassment of the father- in-law and mother-in-law. He has stated that the daughter was conscious in the hospital, he had enquired from the daughter, who stated that she had burnt herself because of the harassment of the parents-in-law. The father could not state about the type of harassment and he only stated that 'God knows what type of harassment was given to his daughter?' He has also stated when she would visit their house, she had never informed them about any harassment. In the cross examination also, this fact get more strengthened that the daughter had never informed of any harassment during the three years of marriage. Further, when both husband and wife would visit them, they would stay there but no such fact of any harassment was ever told to the father. 8.1. The father of the deceased is the complainant, who has given the complaint at Exhibit 13. His Page 11 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined deposition before the Court is not consistent with the complaint, which notes that when they had come back home, since the last two months, the parents-in-law, would taunt her for some work at home and had stated that the parents-in-law were harassing her. Therefore, fed up of the harassment, she had poured kerosene on her body. This fact does not get corroboration from the testimony of the father in the Court. The father has stated that he has no knowledge of any harassment and if at all, there was harassment, it would be known only to God. Thus, the parents were not knowing of any incident of any harassment to be termed as cruelty. The mother of the deceased also had no knowledge of the alleged harassment. It was only when she talked to her daughter in the hospital that she has narrated the alleged harassment. However, no such details were given to the police in the statement. At the same time, the father in the deposition before the trial Court has feigned ignorance and he had left it to God and did not give any concrete Page 12 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined details of the harassment to the daughter.
9.PW4-Dahyabhai Vithalbhai (the brother of the deceased) was examined. He has stated that his parents talked with his sister (the deceased) while his sister had no occasion to talk with him in the hospital. The sister would come occasionally at home. This witness was declared hostile. In the cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the brother has not supported the case of the prosecution, while in the cross examination from the side of the accused, the brother stated that the brother-in-law- Jayant and the deceased whenever they used to come to their house, they were happy and the deceased had never informed about any harassment. Thus, the brother also does not support any complaint made by the sister against the parents-in-law.
10. The evidence now which has been relied by the prosecution is the dying declaration. As stated by Page 13 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined learned advocate Mr. M.R. Ajmeri, the record would suggest that there are three forms of dying declarations. Before PW1-Dr. Babubhai Aalabhai Kalsaiya, where the incident referred is of the deceased sustaining burn injuries because of the bursting of primus stove. Even the statement before the police PW6-Bhagwanbhai Kanjibhai Parmar which learned advocate Mr. M.R. Ajmeri submitted becomes doubtful in view of the recording of the statement by the Investigating Officer as it becomes conflicting to the dying declaration recorded by the learned Executive Magistrate in regard to the time of recording it. 10.1 The evidence of PW1-Dr. Babubhai Aalabhai Kalsaiya of burn injuries because of the bursting of the primus stove has not been supported by PW2- Medical Officer-Dr. Ashokbhai Laljibhai Vadher, who was the treating doctor and who has stated that the cause of death was suicide and not accidental death by the bursting of primus stove or any lamp. Page 14 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined 10.2.The second form of dying declaration is before the police PW6-Bhagwanbhai Kanjibhai Parmar. According to him, on 19.03.2001 when he was at Mahuva Police Station, he had received a yadi from Mahuva Government Hospital. He has produced the Yadi as evidence at Exhibit 17. Thereafter, he had visited the Government Hospital at Mahuva, where he met the Resident Medical Officer at the Hospital. He had enquired from the Doctor about the condition of the injured-Radhika. The Doctor told him that she was in a conscious state and could speak. Thereafter, he had made a Report about recording dying declaration before the learned Executive Magistrate. During that process, he stated that after recording of the dying declaration by the learned Executive Magistrate, he had recorded the statement and as per the same, he deposed that the injured had informed that she had burnt herself because of the harassment of the elder brother-in-law and father-in-law. The witness had stated that he reduced in writing the statement of the Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined injured-Radhika and had taken her left hand thumb impression. In the cross examination he stated that, the statement Ex.18 was recorded at about 11.30, he also affirmed that the statement was recorded only after the dying declaration was recorded by the learned Executive Magistrate.
10.3.The statement at Exhibit 18 becomes very crucial since the mother-in-law (the present appellant No.2) has not been alleged by the daughter-in-law of any harassment. There is no statement of harassment by the mother-in-law. Before police PW6-Bhagwanbhai Kanjibhai Parmar, the harassment as noted was by the elder brother-in-law and father-in-law, while the elder brother-in-law has not been made an accused in the matter. The statement recorded at Exhibit 18 does not bear endorsement of the Doctor to reflect the conscious state of the deceased and she being in a fit state of mind. Learned advocate Mr. M.R. Ajmeri could reflect the distinction of the recording of the statement Page 16 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined by police PW6-Bhagwanbhai Kanjibhai Parmar with that of the dying declaration before the learned Executive Magistrate. The dying declaration before the learned Magistrate at Exhibit 20 refers the time as 16.10 hours to 16.20 hours, that means in the afternoon at 4.10 pm to 4.20 pm, then there would be a contradiction in the statement of the police-PW6 of recording the statement after the recording of the dying declaration. However, a perusal of Exhibit 18, the statement recorded by the police PW6- Bhagwanbhai Kanjibhai Parmar dated 19.03.2001 does not record the time. The time verified from the deposition of PW6 becomes contrary to what is stated in the evidence by the Executive Magistrate. Exhibit 18 recorded that at 9.30 in the morning of 19.03.2001, since the mother-in-law and father-in-law were harassing her, she being fed up had self immolated herself. The statement also states that her parents- in-law and brother-in-law have brought her for treatment at Rajula Primary Centre. However, for Page 17 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined further treatment the injured was brought to the Rajula Government Hospital. The dying declaration at Exhibit 20 only records the harassment by the mother- in-law and records that her husband was at Surat. The father-in-law and elder brother-in-law had brought her for treatment after the injured had self-immolated herself by pouring kerosene over her body. The statement at Exhibit 20 further records that the mother-in-law was harassing her.
10.4 An analysis of the evidence of witnesses shows that there is no knowledge of any harassment being meted out to the daughter by the accused and it is only first time in the dying declaration, the deceased states about the harassment by the mother-in-law and father-in-law. It would also be necessary to record that the treating Doctor has not endorsed about the mental state of the deceased. The endorsement has been given by PW11-Dr. Sajjadali Masoomali Jumani, who states that he was the Medical Officer at the Page 18 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined Mahuva Municipal Hospital and during his duty at 4.10 pm, he enquired as to whether the injured- Radhika was conscious and whether she was in position to depose. Thus, he had gone into the hospital and found that the injured was totally conscious and she was in a fit state of mind. In the cross examination, he has stated that he is not the treating doctor, he has no knowledge of the medicines and injections which were administered to the injured- Radhika during the treatment. He also has stated that he was not present with the injured-Radhika when her statement was recorded and has also confirmed that he has not put signature after the statement was recorded. The conscious state of mind of the injured could not be proved by PW11-Dr. Sajjadali Masoomali Jumani as he was not present while the dying declaration of the injured-Radhika was recorded. Still however, the fact has to be appreciated that prior to certifying the conscious state of mind , the Doctor who had treated and examined her had found Page 19 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined her in fit state of mind. It would be difficult to view that the dying declaration was not recorded after the necessary endorsement of the Doctor. 10.5 The dying declaration at Exhibit 20 does not state of any harassment by the elder brother-in-law. The harassment is attributed to only mother-in-law and thereafter, it refers to both father-in-law and mother- in-law who as stated by learned advocate Mr. M.R. Ajmeri, there are no specifications of any harassment as contemplated under Section 498A IPC. Thus, the dying declaration does not state of any such fact. The learned Judge has rightly not believed the case under Section 306 IPC. The conviction is under section 498A of IPC. The necessary ingredients to bring the case under becomes vital to be examined.
11. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision in the case of Shardaben, Daughter of Ishwarlal Bhogilal & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, dated Page 20 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined 15.07.2025, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.2608 of 2005, where this court had the opportunity to deal with the scope of section 498A , the relevant paragraph are extracted herein below:
"24.10 To prove the charge of Section 498A of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the husband or his relative subjected such woman to cruelty. The term 'cruelty' is explained in two parts of Section 498A. The first part speaks of wilful conduct of a nature that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the life, limb or health, either physical or mental of such woman. 24.11 The second part of Section 498A of IPC provides for harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security on account of these failure or any person related to her to meet such demand. 24.12 Section 498A of IPC does not attract every harassment or every type of cruelty. The prosecution has to establish that the beating and harassment of the deceased were with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil the illegal demand of dowry.
24.13 In the case of Raj Rani (Smt.) Vs. State (Delhi Administration), [(2000) 10 SCC 662] it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
4. We have gone through the entire writing contained in the suicide note. It makes a serious castigation against her husband for being an addict to narcotic drugs. Then she made a general allegation against her mother-in-law and in a lesser degree towards the appellant. But unfortunately she did not advert to any concrete instance which can be termed as cruelty as defined in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860. The utterances said to have been made by the appellant towards the deceased were to her chagrin and she had taken them very seriously and in the suicide note she described such utterances as not worthy of reproduction.
5. It is not enough that the deceased felt those words hurting, it must be subjected to judicial scrutiny and the Court must be in a position to hold that those words were sufficiently hurting enough as to amount to "cruelty" falling Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined within the parameters fixed in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860. The area remains grey and vague. Not a single word said to have been spoken by the appellant as against the deceased had been put on record by the deceased in the suicide note in spite of the fact that the said note is a very lengthy letter running into several paragraphs. The tenor and language of the suicide note would reflect that she was not an illiterate lady. As the Court is rendered helpless to judge whether the words which the deceased heard from the appellant would amount to cruelty, it is far from possible for the criminal court to hold that she is guilty of the offence of cruelty as envisaged in the section. It is also to be pointed out that the deceased did not mention a single deed which the appellant would have done against her. All that is said against the appellant was that she spoke something which she took as objectionable.
27. In the case of State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, [(1994) 1 SCC 73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"15. We are not oblivious that in a criminal trial the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings.
In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Although, the court's conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of the offences alleged, it should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidences adduced in the case and the materials placed on record. Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater [(1950) 2 All ER 458 : 1951 P 35 (CA)] (All ER at p. 459) has observed that the doubt must be of a reasonable man and the standard adopted must be a standard adopted by a reasonable and just man for coming to a conclusion considering the particular subject-matter." Page 22 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined
12. The marriage span is stated to be three years. There won't be any presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act since the case of abetment to the commission of suicide is not believed. No continuous form of harassment to consider as cruelty has been proved. The failure of prosecution witnesses to explain any instances of cruelty or harassment would go to the root of the matter as cruelty should be proved to be of such a level which had drove the daughter-in-law to injure herself and take her life.The cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC, has not been proved. Even the proximate cause of suicide could not also be found in the dying declaration. The only general sentence that mother-in-law is harassing would not bring the case under Section 498A IPC unless continuous harassment is not proved. The prosecution witness has not stated of any single instant/incidents which would fall under the definition of cruelty, as defined under Section 498A IPC. The dying declaration on Page 23 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined record could not prove the continuous harassment by the mother-in-law since there is no single incident of such harassment. The so-called allegation is made by the mother of the deceased against the mother-in-law of the deceased, stating that the mother-in-law had twisted the hands of the deceased, the same does not find support from the evidence of the prosecution itself as no such statement was recorded by the police. Thus, not a single instance could be proved, the prosecution has failed to prove the case under Section 498A IPC. The conviction under section 498A cannot sustain against appellant no 2.
13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appeal of appellant No.1-Laljibhai Galabhai Kaklotar stands abated. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.11.2003 by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No.50 of 2001 is quashed and set aside. The appellant No.2- Godavariben alias Anjvaliben, W/o. Laljibhai Galabhai Page 24 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined is acquitted of all the charges levelled against her. Bail and bond, stands discharged. The amount of fine paid, if any, be refunded to the appellant No.2 herein. Record and proceedings, be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J) CAROLINE / DB # 30 Page 25 of 25 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:24:23 IST 2025