Gujarat High Court
State Of Guajarat vs Copalbhai Madhukarbhai Adhav on 11 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2618 of 2008
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2621 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
STATE OF GUAJARAT
Versus
GOPALBHAI MADHUKARBHAI ADHAV
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MATAFER R PANDE(3952) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Both the appeals have been filed by the State aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 27.08.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.158 of 2007, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, (for short 'IPC'), for a period of one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined fine one month imprisonment. While, learned Sessions Judge acquitted both the accused for the offence under Sections 323, 306 and 114 of IPC, and further accused No.2 - Sumanben Madhukarbhai Sampatbhai Adhav was also acquitted for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
2. Criminal Appeal No.2618 of 2008 is filed under Section 377 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'CrPC) for enhancement of the sentence. While Criminal Appeal No.2621 of 2008 is filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the CrPC to set aside the order of acquittal and to convict both the accused for the offences, as charged.
3. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt referring to the depositions of all the witnesses, which are 11 in number submitted that there were evidence on record to conclude the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. All the witnesses of the family members of deceased - Hanshaben Gopalbhai Adhav has deposed of the harassment by both husband and the mother-in- law. Even after staying separately, there was harassment from both the husband and the mother-in-law and though, facts have been proved, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in disbelieving the witnesses.
Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined 3.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that in the incident, over and above Hanshaben, the minor daughter-Janvi aged about one and half year also died. The said fact, Ms. Bhatt submitted that, makes it very much obvious on record to consider the harassment, which was suffered by the deceased. Learned APP submitted that the complaint proves the continuous mental and physical torture to the deceased and that learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the important vital evidence in right spirit and has erred in acquitting the accused. 3.2 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt further submitted that the evidence on record by way of Section 313 of the CrPC has mislead the Court, while the dying declaration proves the cruelty which the deceased suffered and therefore, submitted that the punishment only under Section 498A of IPC is insufficient and the learned Trial Court was required to see the case of suicide and ought to have punished the husband and even the mother-in-law so as to create a deterrent effect since, the cruelty of the husband and the mother-in-law had led the wife to commit suicide and thus, there is clear case of abetment to suicide.
4. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Matafer R.Pande submitted that the evidence on record has been proved Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined that the mother-in-law was not staying along with the accused No.1 and the deceased Hanshaben. The evidence of the neighbour (PW6), though has been declared hostile, itself proves the fact that deceased-Hanshaben and accused Gopalbhai were staying separately. The allegations against the mother-in-law are general in nature. There are no specific details of any harassment and the dying declaration itself proves that deceased
- Hanshaben on her own had committed suicide and there was not instigation from any of the accused. At the time of committing suicide, accused No.1 was in the balcony, which has been stated by the witness, and further in the incident, accused No.1 while trying to save the deceased, he himself got injured. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Pande submitted that one year imprisonment is also excessive under Section 498A of IPC since ingredients of Section 498A has not been proved. Mr. Pande further submitted that during the trial, he had undergone the imprisonment, hence, there was set off given to the punishment. Advocate Mr. Pande submitted that there is no reason for even challenging the conviction and there would not be any ground for enhancing the sentence since accused No.1 has already undergone one year imprisonment.
Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined
5. Jail remarks has been placed on record by learned APP Ms. Bhatt. As per the jail remarks accused - Gopalbhai Madhukar Adhav (Sakunsali), aged about 52 years had been in jail for one year four months and 53 days. The jail remarks shows that after according the set off, he has been released from jail on 27.08.2008 i.e. from the day of the judgment.
6. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on 16.01.2007 at 19.00 hours. The Executive Magistrate, Rajeshkumar Thakorbhai Desai was examined as PW-7 at Exh.25. The patient was conscious and such endorsement was given by the Medical Officer, prior to recording of the dying declaration. The Executive Magistrate has referred to the statement given by the injured deceased - Hansaben Gopalbhai Adhav and when she was asked, she stated that her husband on the day of ''Uttarayan'' and also day before the incident had come consuming liquor and therefore, being angry she ablazed herself by pouring kerosene on her body and had burned herself with the match stick. She was further asked about her husband, she stated that her husband was in Balcony. The dying declaration was in a fit and conscious state of mind. There was no reason to doubt the recording of dying declaration and Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined nothing has been brought in the cross-examination, which could create any doubt regarding the credential of the dying declaration.
7. The dying declaration of Hanshaben shows that husband on ''Uttarayan'' and day before the incident that means on14.01.2007and 15.01.2007, had come in inebriated state, she was not happy and getting enraged she burnt herself. Dying declaration does not refer to any act of mother-in-law. The place of incident is rented premises. The neighbour PW6 - Saraswatiben Prakashbhai has been examined at Exh.22. She has been declared hostile, but deposition shows that the deceased was staying along with the husband Gopalbhai and two children. According to her, deceased has not informed her about any cruelty and cross-examined shows that husband and wife both were staying happily, there was no quarrel.
8. The postmortem of the deceased minor-Janvi Gopalbhai Adhav was conducted by PW1 Doctor Prakesh Patel and there were about 45% burnt and the child died on 04.02.2007. 8.1 PW2 - Doctor Arvind Dasrathsinh deposed at Exh.15, who conducted the postmortem of deceased Hanshaben Gopalbhai Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Adhav on 21.01.2007. According to his deposition, the patient was admitted on 15.01.2007 at Smimer Hospital and on 20.01.2007 at about 2.45 in the afternoon, she died. 8.2 PW3 - complainant father, Prabhakar Girdhar Sonwane had accused the husband and mother-in-law of harassing his daughter. As per his deposition, initially after the marriage, his daughter was staying along with husband and mother-in-law . PW3-complainant stated that for about six months, there was no dispute and thereafter, both father-in-law and mother-in-law started harassing the daughter. Whenever, she used to come during the occasion of Holi and Diwali, the daughter would inform him about the harassment. The deposition of the sister (PW8) - Rekhaben Ajay Sonwane would state of the marriage span of six to seven years. After the matrimonial life, the couple had two children, one was boy aged about five years and another was deceased daughter-Janhvi aged about one and half year. The deceased had also informed to PW8 - sister about the incident and before her she stated that her husband Gopal since last three days was consuming liquor and was beating her and because of that harassment she had burned herself. PW-8 - the sister also affirms that while the sister got burnt, accused No.1- Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined husband Gopalbhai had tried to save her, but he too got burnt and was admitted in the hospital.
8.3 The complainant father could not specify the type of harassment by the mother-in-law or the husband. In general form, he stated that his daughter was asked to bring clothes and money from her parental house. He stated that the neighbour had informed him that her mother-in-law was coming there and harassing the daughter-in-law, however, no such evidence has come on record. PW-6, the neighbour, has not stated any such fact. The fact also becomes clear that at the time of the incident, the mother-in-law was not staying with them. The deceased and her husband and two children were staying in the rented property.
8.4 The complainant has put his complaint at Exh.19 in his evidence, and he, according to the complaint has given the deposition. The complaint refers to accused No.1 in inebriated condition beating the daughter Hanshaben on 15.01.2007 and fed up of that, she burned herself by pouring kerosene. The complaint and the dying declaration refers only to the conduct of accused No.1, who on 14.01.2007 and 15.01.2007, had come to house consuming liquor. The deceased Hanshaben is not Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined referring to any beatings from the accused No.1. She has stated before the Executive magistrate that since her husband on ''Uttarayan'' day and the day after ''Uttarayan'', which is the date before committing suicide, had come consuming liquor and therefore, she got angry and burned herself. There is no evidence of beating on 14.01.2007 or 15.01.2007.
8.5 The mother of the deceased - Niluben Prabhakar Sonwade has been examined as PW-4, who too has stated that her daughter has burnt herself, as she was harassed by the husband and mother-in-law. But the deposition of the PW4 does not get corroboration from the dying declaration of the deceased herself. The marriage span is more than 6 years, the sister of deceased Rekhaben has stated that son Bhavesh was aged about five years and daughter was aged about one and half years. The brother Pravinbhai Prabhakar Sonwade was examined as PW5, who had also referred to the beatings by accused Gopalbhai to his sister being in an intoxicated state. As observed hereinabove, dying declaration does not state of any beatings by the accused. 8.6 PW9 is a Panch of the place of offence. The Panch has proved the Panchnama Exh.30, which is a place, where the deceased and the husband with the children were staying. PW10 Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined is a Assistant in F.S.L., who was asked to draw the sketch of the place of incident and has given his report at Exh.33 and the sketch has been produced on record at Exh.34. 8.7 PW11 - Nathubhai Gavjibhai has recorded the complaint at Limbayat Police Station. The complaint was recorded in the Station Diary and was produced in evidence at Exh.36. PW12 is the Police Inspector, who was in-charge of Limbayat Police Station who had received the 'Wardi' from the hospital, and he recorded the same in the Station Diary. He stated that the Station Diary was handed over to B.N. Kashyap. The witness has produced the 'Wardi' at Exh.38. PW13 is Beniram Matadin Kashyap, who, as per the 'Wardi' had gone to Smimer Hospital. The inquest panchnama was drawn and the panchnama, as stated was recorded as per the panchas. He had noted the complaint at Exh.19 on 16.01.2007. The Investigating Officer - Ghanshyamsinh Raghusinh Rao was examined as PW14 at Exh.40. The contradiction in the statement of neighbour Saraswatiben (PW6), the neighbour, was brought on record. However, such statement cannot be made the basis of conviction and being a neighbour, she has denied of any such statement before the police of any harassment by the husband to the wife. Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined
9. The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the case under Section 306 and 114 of the IPC and also under Section 323 of IPC. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has not found any case under Section 498A of IPC against the mother-in-law.
10. In the case of the State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal & Another in Criminal Appeal No.959 of 2018, while deciding the leniency, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the High Court was too lenient in imposing the sentence of six days only which was the period already undergone by the accused in confinement. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the case of Soman vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 382 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648 and has made observations in Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 as under :-
"10. Currently, India does not have structured sentencing guidelines that have been issued either by the legislature or the judiciary. However, the Courts have framed certain Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined guidelines in the matter of imposition of sentence. A Judge has wide discretion in awarding the sentence within the statutory limits. Since in many offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences the minimum punishment is prescribed, each Judge exercises his discretion accordingly. There cannot, therefore, be any uniformity. However, this Court has repeatedly held that the Courts will have to take into account certain principles while exercising their discretion in sentencing, such as proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation. In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of an offence depends, apart from other things, also upon its harmfulness.
11. This Court in the case of Soman Vs. State of Kerala [(2013) 11 SCC 382] observed thus :
"27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different rationales - most prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence.
27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint 27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence. 27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it.
27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer but the distributor and the retail vendor would know its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even though any harm to the consumer might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if the consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor."
12. The same is the verdict of this Court in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 2 SCC 648] wherein it is observed thus:
"84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."
13. From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the principle governing the imposition of punishment will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the sentence should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is committed. The gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined nature of the crime and all other attending circumstances have to be borne in mind while imposing the sentence. The Court cannot afford to be casual while imposing the sentence, inasmuch as both the crime and the criminal are equally important in the sentencing process. The Courts must see that the public does not lose confidence in the judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences will do more harm to the justice system and may lead to a state where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and resorts to private vengeance.
14. In the matter at hand, it is proved that the victim has sustained a grievous injury on a vital portion of the body, i.e. the head, which was fractured. The doctor has opined that the injury was life threatening. Hence, in our considered opinion, the High Court was too lenient in imposing the sentence of six days only which was the period already undergone by the accused in confinement."
11. The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate does not note of any continuous harassment by the mother-in- law or the husband. The deceased as injured refers to the husband coming on the day of 'Uttarayan' and the next day in intoxicated state. The deceased has not refereed to any beatings by the husband. The evidence on record has come on record that the family as a husband, wife and two children were staying separately from the mother-in-law. Only a general statement of harassment without any further details of any cruelty could not bring the case under Section 498A of IPC against the mother-in- Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined law.
12. Section 377 of CrPC is for the enhancement of the sentence, which permits the accused to plead for his acquittal or reduction of the sentence. Sub-section (3) of Section 377 reads as under:-
"(3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the Court of Session or, as the case may be, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence."
13. The prayer has been made under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. by filing an appeal enhancing the sentence. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the husband as accused No.1 for a period of one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.
14. In Bed Raj v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1955 (2) SCR 583, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded that the question of sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere to the detriment of the accused person except for very strong Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined reasons, which must be disclosed on the fact of judgment. It was further held that in a matter of enhancement, there should not be interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment. Here in this case, the accused No.1 has already suffered imprisonment of one year four months and fifty three days.
15. Mr. Pande, learned advocate for the accused submitted that actually, there had been no evidence on record to even consider the case under Section 498A of IPC against the accused No.1. However, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused No.1 under Section 498A of IPC considering the circumstances under which the wife committed suicide. Mr. Pande has submitted that since the husband was not present at the time of wife committing suicide and that in fact, he went to save the wife and during that process, he himself got injured and was admitted in the hospital, would show that there was no case of any abetment to suicide and therefore, Mr. Pande submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused No.1 for the charge under Section 306 of IPC. Advocate Mr. Pandey has also submitted that there was no case for the mother-in-law to even being arraigned as an accused and the Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined learned Judge has rightly acquitted the mother-in-law from all the charges.
16. On perusal of the evidence and as discussed hereinabove, there was no case against the mother-in-law of any continuous harassment. No specific details have been given by any of the witnesses to draw a presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act against any of the accused. The sentence, which has been laid down and passed against the accused No.1 is consistent with the evidence on record. The State has not shown any grounds for enhancing the sentence, nor has shown any evidence on record to entertain the grounds raised for setting aside the acquittal.
17. In view of the above discussions and observations, both the appeals stand dismissed. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj/1 (Suppl.) Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:24:56 IST 2025