Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Maheboobbhai Rasoolbhai Parmar on 5 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/924/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 924 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MAHEBOOBBHAI RASOOLBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
MR HARDIK H DAVE(6295) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 05/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.03.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No.12 of 2008, whereby the respondents accused came to be acquitted for the offences under sections 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, the appellant - State has preferred present appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short).
2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that respondent No.1 Maheboobbhai Rasoolbhai is the husband of the deceased Yasminben. Respondent No.2, respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 are mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of the deceased. It is the case of prosecution that the said respondents, before the date of the incident 1.e. 21.10.2007 Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:56:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/924/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined since last 1 and half years, aided and abetted each other in harassing physically and mentally to the deceased Yasminben for not satisfying demand of dowry from the deceased Yasminben, and therefore, Yasminben on 20.10.2007 consumed acid for committing suicide. Yasminben was admitted to the hospital of Dr. Deepaben on 20.10.2007 and thereafter she was shifted to the Civil Hospital, Rajkot where she died on 01.11.2007. The complainant Alarakhabhai Rahimbhai, brother of Yasminben, on 17.11.2007 lodged a complaint to the aforesaid effect before the Savarkundla Police station.
3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant with the concerned Police Station for the aforesaid offences, the investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, drawn panchnama of scene of offence, discovery and recovery of weapons and obtained FSL report etc. for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found sufficient material against the respondents accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Amreli as provided under section 209 of the Code.
4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Amreli, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.6 against the respondents accused for the aforesaid offences. The respondents accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and also produced various documentary Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:56:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/924/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in para 10 (A) and 10(B) of the impugned judgment and order.
6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondents accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondents accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them as false and further stated that they are innocent and false case has been filed against them.
7. Heard learned APP Mr.Dave for the appellant - State and minutely examined oral and documentary evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court. Learned advocate for other side did not remain present.
8. In essence, charge of offence under section 306 of IPC has not been believed by learned Trial Court, whereby, deceased committed suicide by consuming acid and died.
9. Having heard learned APP for appellant, what could be noticed that FIR is not registered under section 498(A) of IPC. What further could be noticed that deceased once had taken divorce from her husband, later on re-married to him. This fact is sufficient to falsify case of the prosecution about harassment and cruelty. If we read charge against accused, it alleges that before one and half month back of the incident, dowry was demanded along with cruelty and harassment, which later on Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:56:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/924/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined after one and half month ignited deceased to consume acid. Deceased consumed acid on 20.10.2007 and succumbed to it on 01.11.2007. FIR is filed by brother of deceased on 17.11.2007. If we peruse judgment of learned Trial Court viz-a-viz evidence on record, it is noticeable that relatives of deceased disclosed that deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty but they are general and vague in nature. No specific incident are recorded in the FIR or in deposition.
10. Independent witness including second wife of accused no.1
- Rizwanaben who was living with the deceased turned hostile. Other witnesses who were living with the deceased or living around deceased at the relevant time turned hostile. No dying declaration is recorded, despite deceased lived for long time. Learned Trial Court also recorded that no explanation is offered by the complainant to file FIR after 27 days delay, rather complainant admitted at Exh.25 that they were not intending to file complaint after deceased survived. So question of believing FIR and charge-sheet does not arise. It also appears from the finding of learned Trial Court that deceased was fed up on the reason that her son was crying for past two days and she perhaps has consumed acid and committed suicide. Oral evidence does not favour case of the prosecution, yet deposition of parental witnesses of deceased if taken as gospel truth, the question arise whether they are sufficient to prove essential ingredient of section 307 and 306 of IPC.
8. In order to prove prima facie the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the prosecution is required to show that there is some Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:56:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/924/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined instigation on the part of the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide as no alternative is left with her except to commit suicide. The word 'instigation' is defined in IPC. In Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh (2001)9 SCC 618 following words as defined the instigation.
"Instigation is to goad, urge, forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 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. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct. created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be in- ferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation."
9. In order to prove offence under section 306 of IPC, prosecution is required to lead evidence as stated herein-above. The act of omission of accused must be proximity and must have direct line with the suicide committed by deceased. In the present case, as discussed herein-above, prosecution has failed to either establish proximity act or omission of act or link that led deceased to commit suicide. Learned APP could not point out any error on the part of learned Sessions Court which permit this Court to take different view.
10. What could be noticeable that the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment has thoroughly evaluated the evidence Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:56:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/924/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined of the prosecution and ascribed reasons that how the prosecution case fell short of achieving standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". The findings of the learned trial Court also indicate about existence of sheer contradiction and improvisation in the deposition of star witnesses and became root cause to stultify prosecution case. In view of above, this Court finds no sufficient material to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of recording acquittal.
11. To be noted that since the trial court's judgment acquitted the accused, reinforce the presumption of innocence, the appellant State needs to present a much stronger case to overturn the original verdict and secure a conviction.
12. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then also, the appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. (Ramesh Babulal Doshi V. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225). In the instant case, the learned APP for the applicant has not been able to point out to us as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.
13. 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 evidence and reach its own Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:56:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/924/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined 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."
14. 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 with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned 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 learned 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.
15. 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, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:56:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/924/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025 undefined
16. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bond stands cancelled.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:56:27 IST 2025