Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Parvatiben W/O Pareshbhai Shantilal ... on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 314 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PARVATIBEN W/O PARESHBHAI SHANTILAL MANIYAR
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 20.11.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.19 of 2011 on the file of the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, whereby the sole accused in the case was acquitted of the charges under Sections 306 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Concise statement of facts pertaining to the prosecution case may be stated as follows:-
Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:48:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
3. Pareshbhai Shantilal Maniyar (herein after referred to as "the deceased") is the husband of the accused. Their marriage was solemnized more than seven years ago, prior to the death of the deceased. They had no issues out of their lawful wedlock. It is stated that the accused, who is the wife of the deceased, used to harass the deceased quarreling with him frequently and beat him unnecessarily and attack him on his private parts. As they were not in cordial terms with each other, the accused used to subject the deceased to harassment in the above manner daily. While so, on 4.11.2010, it is stated that, the deceased has informed PW-1, who is his father, that he is fed up with the behaviour of his wife, who is the accused, as she has been constantly harassing him by picking up quarrels with him and beating him, and that unable to bear the said harassment that he is consuming poison. So, it is stated that the deceased had taken insecticide tablets at about 8.30 a.m. on that day in the lavatory, and again at 11 a.m. on that day, he has taken the same insecticide tablets in the house. Thereafter, he had vomitings and when he is being taken to the hospital, the accused obstructed his family members from taking him to the hospital and, at that time also, she quarreled with him. After the deceased was taken to Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:48:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined the hospital, he was admitted in the hospital. On the requisition given by the hospital authority, PW-10, who is learned Executive Magistrate, visited the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. The deceased stated in his dying declaration that the accused, who is his wife, has been constantly harassing him by quarreling with him and beating him frequently and unable to bear the said harassment that he has consumed the poison. Thereafter, he died on the same day i.e. 4.11.2010. After holding the inquest over his dead body, autopsy was held over his dead-body by the doctor, who is examined as PW-7, and no injuries anywhere on his body or on his private parts were found. The doctor opined that he died due to cardio-respiratory arrest due to poisoning by the compound named alluminium phosphied. Postmortem certificate was issued to that effect.
4. After his death on 4.11.2010, PW-1, lodged a report with police against accused on 25.11.2010 with delay of 20 days. The police registered the said report as a case for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 302 of IPC. The case was investigated. After completion of the investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 302 of IPC.
Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:48:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
5. In the trial Court charge under Section 306 of IPC and alternative charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the accused. He denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
6. In the trial that took place, prosecution got examined PW- 1 to PW-13 witnesses and got marked 24 exhibits to prove its case against the accused.
7. After completion of the trial, upon considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court found the accused not guilty either for the charge under Section 306 or for the charge under Section 302 of IPC and acquitted him of the said offences by the impugned judgment of acquittal.
8. Being not satisfied with the said judgment of acquittal, and aggrieved by it, the State has preferred the present appeal against the accused questioning the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.
9. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Bhargav Pandya, and learned counsel, Mr.Yogendra Thakore, for the respondent. Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:48:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
10. At the outset, we would like to hold that the very framing of alternative charge under Section 302 of IPC by the trial Judge based on the facts and circumstances of the case is wholly misconceived and totally uncalled for. It is really beyond our comprehension as to how the trial Court framed an alternative charge for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, regarding murder of the deceased. It is not at all the case of the prosecution that the accused administered poison to the deceased and thereby killed him and committed murder of the deceased punishable under Section 302 of IPC. In fact, it is nobody's case that the deceased was murdered by the accused. Even the postmortem report shows that it is a case of death due to consumption of poison. So, it is not at all a case of homicidal death. Therefore, as noticed supra, the very farming of an alternative charge under Section 302 of IPC is clearly unsustainable under law. It shows total non-application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case by the trial Judge, who framed the charges. At the time of framing charges, the trial Court has to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, the specific allegations ascribed against the accused and the evidence on record and then the trial Court has to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:48:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined of the case and the allegations ascribed against the accused and then frame appropriate charge, calling the accused to face the trial for the said charges levelled against him. We take serious note of the non-application of mind by the learned trial Judge to the facts and circumstances of the case, while framing erroneous charge under Section 302 of IPC, even alternatively in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Being a Sessions Judge with sufficient experience, he is expected to apply his mind to the facts of the case and frame an appropriate charge for trial of the case. So, while seriously deprecating the framing of an alternative charge under Section 302 of IPC by the trial Judge, we straightaway hold that absolutely no case for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is made out from the facts of the case. The facts of the case do not constitute any offence under Section 302 of IPC as it is not at all a case of homicidal death.
11. As regards the offence under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, it pertains to abetment to commit suicide. Admittedly, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased has consumed poison in the form of insecticide tablets and died. The medical evidence on record bears ample testimony Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:48:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined of the said fact. The evidence of the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead-body of the deceased, examined as PW- 1, coupled with the postmortem report issued by him, amply proves that the deceased died due to consumption of poisonous substance and that it is a clear case of suicidal death.
12. Now, the question is whether the deceased voluntarily committed suicide or whether the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC or not. It is settled law that in order to prove the offence of abetment to commit suicide punishable under Section 306 of IPC, necessary ingredients contemplated under Section 107 of IPC relating to intentional instigation said to have been given by the accused to the deceased to commit suicide or intentional aid said to have been given by the accused to the deceased to commit suicide are to be invariably proved and established by the prosecution. Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused has either intentionally instigated the deceased to commit suicide or aided him to commit suicide. A careful consideration of the facts of the case and his own Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:48:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined statement given before PW-10, learned Executive Magistrate, who recorded his last statement in the form of his dying declaration, the deceased himself has voluntarily said that he has taken the poisonous substance to put an end to his life. The reason assigned by him for taking the said poisonous substance to commit suicide is that he has no cordial terms with the accused, who is his wife and that the accused used to frequently quarrel with him and beat him and harass him constantly and unable to bear the said harassment that he has taken poisonous substance and committed suicide. Therefore, if there are any family bickerings and disputes between the couple and even if there is any harassment by beating the deceased, and if the deceased, because of his weak nature, sensitive mind or emotional nature, voluntarily takes an extreme decision of putting an end to his life, by committing suicide, it cannot be said under any stretch of reasoning that he has committed suicide on account of any intentional instigation or aid given by the accused to commit suicide. As per the facts of the prosecution case, the accused did not goad or drive or abet the deceased to commit suicide. It is the deceased, who has taken decision voluntarily to commit suicide because of his innocent nature or weak mind, to put an Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:48:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined end to his life. So the accused cannot be made liable for the suicidal death of the deceased. As noticed supra, proof of prerequisites contemplated under Section 107 of IPC are sine qua non to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 306 of IPC. They are conspicuously absent in this case. Therefore, no case is made out even for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
13. The Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and Another v. Inspector of Police, reported in 2002 Livelaw (SC) 834, while dealing with the case under Section 306 of IPC, held that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act of incitement to commission of suicide and merely on the allegation of harassment, without there being any positive action, proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable. In Patel Babubhai Manhardas and Others v. State of Gujarat reported in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 288 also, recently the Apex Court, while dealing with the case under Section 306 of IPC, held that mere harassment or blackmail without direct Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:48:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined incitement or proximate acts compelling suicide is not sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 306 of IPC and, thereby acquitted the appellants therein.
14. Thus, from the conspectus of law enunciated in the above-cited judgments, legal position is made very clear that mere act of harassment by itself will not constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC, if the deceased has committed suicide voluntarily because of any such harassment. There must be proximate nexus between the act of suicide and the act of instigation or aid said to have been given by the accused to commit said suicide. Considering this case on the touchstone of the above discussed law, we have absolutely no hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to make out any case for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
15. After considering the facts of the case and evidence on record, the trial Court, though framed erroneous charge under Section 302 of IPC, ultimately arrived at a right conclusion in recording finding of acquittal in favour of the accused for the charges levelled against him. We do not find any legal flaw in Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:48:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined the impugned judgment of acquittal. Therefore, it calls for no interference in this appeal. The appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.
16. Ergo, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 20.11.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.19 of 2011 on the file of learned 7 th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot. 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 11 of 11 Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:48:43 IST 2025