Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Nimeshbhai Rasiklal Patel on 29 July, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/932/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
======================================
Approved for Reporting Yes
No
No
======================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NIMESHBHAI RASIKLAL PATEL & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MS MEGHA CHITALIA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MS MEETA PANCHA, ADVOCATE for MS HANSA B PUNANI(682)
for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
MS SEJAL V SUTARIA(878) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 4
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 29/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] This is an Appeal filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur dated 05.012.2017 rendered in Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:25:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/932/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2007 whereby the respondents - accused have come to be acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') as also under Section 4 of the Dowry and Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
[2.0] Since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur convicted all the accused of the aforesaid charges vide his judgment and order dated 06.01.2007, respondents - accused preferred aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2007 before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) wherein the aforesaid order of acquittal came to be rendered by the learned Judge on 05.12.2007, which is under challenge.
[3.0] Endorsement on the cause list shows that Appeal against respondents nos.1, 2 and 3 is already abated. Accused nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, and therefore, this acquittal Appeal is to be considered, for whatever worth it is, for respondent no.4 alone, who happens to be the sister-in-law of the complainant - Ashaben.
[4.0] It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant - Ashaben married with accused no.1 in the year 1994. Initially she was treated well. Thereafter, accused nos.1 and 2 to 4 have started taunting the complainant for small issues. It is further alleged that for satisfying their demands, she was also beaten and cruelty was inflicted upon her. It is Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:25:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/932/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined further alleged by the prosecution that at the instance of accused nos. 2 to 4, accused no.1, on 11.10.2002, in the afternoon asked the complainant to bring about Rs.50,000/- from her parental home and dropped her just on the road near her parental home. Thus, it is alleged that the accused were inflicting cruelty upon her, and therefore, she had to file complaint for an offence under Section 498A of the 'IPC', before the Police. While hearing the Appeal of the convicted respondents - accused, learned Judge has on reappreciation of evidence, analyzed threadbare the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and recorded the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal, which is under challenge in this acquittal Appeal.
[5.0] Ms. Megha Chitalia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, vehemently submitted that so far as inflicting cruelty by way of taunting and demanding an amount of Rs.50,000/- from her parental home and all the accused taunting her alleging to be infertile, which is nothing but cruelty as enumerated under Section 498A of the 'IPC', and therefore, judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in Appeal is erroneous.
[5.1] Taking this Court to the deposition of the complainant, witnesses as also complaint and other documents, it is submitted that evidence of complainant is consistent and it is corroborated by other witnesses, who happens to be the relatives. She has further submitted that only because her testimony is corroborated by interested witnesses, it cannot be discarded so as to record an order of Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:25:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/932/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined acquittal. She has further submitted that considering the deposition of all the witnesses and appreciating the same, learned Magistrate has convicted the accused, which requires no interference in a conviction Appeal at the ends of learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, she has submitted that there is no alternative but to convict the accused, that too, for an offence under Section 498A and 114 of the 'IPC' as also under Section 4 of 'the Act'.
[6.0] As against that, Ms. Meeta Panchal, learned advocate for Ms. Hansa Punani, learned advocate for respondent no.4, vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate had only appreciated what is deposed to before the Court in an examination-in-chief of the witnesses. At the same time, only denials are considered by the learned Magistrate to convict the accused. She has further submitted that any inconsistency in between the witnesses is apparently ignored by the learned Magistrate and rightly considered by the learned Sessions Judge to record an order of acquittal. She has further submitted that accused no.4 is sister-in-law, who stays separate from the accused, and therefore, there is no occasion for her to daily taunt her. Even stray incident of even taunting, as deposed to by the complainant, is not sufficient to convict respondent no.4 - accused, and therefore, well reasoned judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge requires no interference, that too, in this acquittal Appeal by this Court.
[7.0] Having heard learned advocates for the appearing parties as also considering the impugned judgment and order Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:25:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/932/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined passed by the learned Sessions Judge as also passed by the learned Magistrate and on reappreciation of evidence adduced before the Court and the documents produced, it is to be examined whether this Court can interfere in the acquittal Appeal or not. On reappreciating the evidence adduced before the Court, it appears that, as claimed by the complainant, marriage between accused no.1, who is no more with the complainant, was performed in the year 1994. The complaint for the same has come to be filed after about 15 days thereof. Though the complainant in her deposition attempted to explain the delay in filing the complaint saying that father of accused no.1 was informed over phone to take her back to the matrimonial home, and since nobody came to take her to her matrimonial home, this complaint is filed in delay. However, as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, no any documentary proof in support thereof is produced. Even no attempts on behalf of the complainant by anyone to pursue accused to take her back and accused having refused the same is brought on record by the prosecution. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge has recorded that the complaint filed after 15 days after the so called incident of dropping her on the road near her parental home is nothing but an afterthought appears to be justified.
[7.1] Not only that, though marriage is claimed, there appears no rituals except garlanding each other as it being second marriage of the complainant with accused no.1 performed. Be that as it may, since 1994 to 1998, as admitted by the complainant in her evidence, they stayed together alone at Ankleshwar. So substantial part of her married life Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:25:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/932/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined she was alone with her husband - accused no.1 in the initial part of her so called marriage. At the same time, though the complainant and witnesses have not uttered anything about whether respondent no.4 - accused - sister-in-law is married or not, it has come on record that she was staying separate and not alongwith the accused in a joint family. Thus, it is clear that she had no occasion to continuously, constantly or persistently taunt her of being infertile. Therefore, complainant had to state in her evidence that she is also residing in Ahmedabad, and therefore, while coming at home in a joint family, she used to taunt her saying infertile. However, very general and bald statement is made by the complainant in her deposition that all the accused were taunting her of being infertile whereas a specific allegation against respondent no.4 about the said aspect is made. The husband and parents-in-law have never taunted her, she being infertile. If at all anyone is to taunt her for that would be husband and thereafter parents-in-law. Though, it is not the case that the sister-in-law cannot taunt her but when sister-in- law is already staying separate and not staying in a joint family with accused, she may not have that opportunity to taunt her and that too, for the aforesaid allegation. Since the demand of any amount and constant torture while she is staying in a joint family are against accused nos,1 to 3 and they are no more in this world, this Appeal is not considered on that aspect against them.
[7.2] At the same time, there appears no demand of any money by respondent no.4 - sister-in-law - accused. At the same time, she is staying separate and never stayed in a joint Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:25:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/932/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined family during the married life of the complainant. It is very easy to make such allegation, that too, in a complaint filed after about 15 days thereof. Such cases are on rise to drag each and every relation of the husband for whatever purpose. Be that as it may, learned Sessions Judge in an Appeal threadbare analyzed the material inconsistencies and improvements in between the witnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, which requires no separate reference as it has been enumerated in detail in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. As such, one of the witness, sister of the complainant, who claims her statement was not recorded by the Police but since IO has expired when the trial took place, he could not be examined, and therefore, contradictions could not be proved in absence of other witnesses being examined by the prosecution. Be that as it may. For such a bald statement, that too, against respondent no.4 - accused, who is sister-in-law of the complainant, who is staying separate from the joint family where complaint has come to be filed after about 15 days of the so called incident of driving her out by accused no.1, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in a conviction Appeal preferred by the respondents - accused. Hence, this Appeal is dismissed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) siji Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:25:43 IST 2025