Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ishvarbhai Pababhai Dharani on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1043 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 199 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ISHVARBHAI PABABHAI DHARANI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. These two appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 24/01/2013 passed by learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhaliya in Sessions Case No.22 of 2010 where- under the respondent nos.1 to 3 herein who are A-1 to A-3 in the said case were acquitted of the charges punishable under Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:54:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Sections 498A, 306, 304(B) and 323 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Factual matrix of the prosecution case may be stated as follows:
2.1. Monghiben (herein after referred to as 'the deceased') is the legally wedded wife of A-1. A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-
1. Marriage between A-1 and the deceased took place on 13/02/2006. They led conjugal life and one daughter was born to them during their lawful wedlock. It is the case of the prosecution that some time after the marriage that both A-1 who is her husband as well as A-2 and A-3 who are her parents-in-law started harassing her and subjecting her to cruelty demanding money from her. Unable to bear the said harassment, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial house and reside in her parents house for a period of seven to eight months. It is stated that A-2 and A-3 who are her parents-in-law demanded Rs.5,000/- as a condition not to harass her and to allow her to lead conjugal life with her husband. So, PW-6 who is the brother of the deceased paid the said sum of Rs.5,000/- and both A-2 and A-3 together Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:54:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined collected the said sum of Rs.5,000/- from him. Thereafter, it is stated that again A-1 demanded Rs.10,000/- and harassed her and stated that he would take her back with him from the house of her parents only if the said sum of Rs.10,000/- is paid. Accordingly, PW-6 who is the brother of the deceased paid the said sum to A-1 and thereafter A-1 took her to his house. While both of them were living together, it is stated that on the evening of 31/12/2009, the deceased called her brother PW-6 over phone and informed him that the accused are demanding Rs.50,000/- from her. Thereafter, on the next day i.e. on 01/01/2010, at about 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon the deceased committed suicide by hanging with her saree. A-1 who is her husband took her to the hospital where she was declared dead.
3. On the report lodged by PW-6 who is the brother of the deceased, police registered a case under Sections 498A, 306, 304(B) and 323 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. The case was investigated. Inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter postmortem was held over the dead body of the deceased. The doctor who conducted an autopsy opined that Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:54:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined she died due to hanging. After competition of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. In the trial court, charges under Sections 498A, 306, 304(B) and 323 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the accused. They denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-10 witnesses and got marked 20 exhibits to prove its case against the accused.
6. After conclusion of the trial, on consideration of the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial court found the accused not guilty for any of the said charges levelled against them and acquitted them of the said charges by the impugned judgment.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, present appeals are preferred by both State and the De-facto Complainant questioning the legality and validity of the Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:54:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined impugned judgment of acquittal.
8. When the appeals came up for hearing, we have heard at length Ms.Krina Calla, learned APP for the appellant-State and Mr. Vijay Nagesh for the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.1043 of 2013 as well as Mr. Anil Mehta appearing for Mr.Ashish Dagli for the appellant-original complainant, Mr.Vijay Nagesh for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Ms. Krina Calla, learned APP for respondent no.4-State in Criminal Appeal No.199 of 2014.
9. The marital facts of the case are not in controversy. Admittedly, the deceased is the wife of A-1. Their marriage was solemnized on 13/02/2006. She died by committing suicide by handing on 01/01/2010. So, her suicidal death took place within seven years of her marriage. These facts are incontrovertible facts in this case.
10. We would first like to consider the charge under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
11. In order to hold a person is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, it Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:54:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined has to be shown that the deceased who is the wife of A-1 died due to the burn injuries or under any unnatural circumstances within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that soon before her death that she was subjected to harassment for or in connection with a demand made for dowry. As per the explanation appended to Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, the term 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
12. Although in the instant case, the suicidal death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of her marriage, in order to invoke the presumption under Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act that it is a case of dowry death, there is no acceptable legal evidence on record to prove that the deceased was subjected to any harassment for or in connection with a demand for dowry as contemplated under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from it, there is no proper evidence on record to prove that soon before her suicidal death that she was subjected to any such harassment with any demand for dowry. There must be a proximate nexus between the acts of harassment said to have been caused to her with a demand for dowry and her suicidal death. There Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:54:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined must be strong evidence or circumstances in proof of the fact that she was subjected to harassment for or in connection with dowry soon before her death to establish that proximate nexus between the alleged acts of the accused pertaining to the alleged harassment and the suicidal death of the deceased.
13. In the instant case, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased committed suicide on the afternoon of 01/01/2010 and in the evening of the previous day i.e. 31/12/2009 that she informed her brother PW-6 on phone that the accused are harassing her with a demand for money of Rs.50,000/-. So, this demand and the consequent harassment is shown as the main reason for her suicidal death on the next day to prove that she was subjected to harassment soon before her death. But the said material fact is not proved and established by the prosecution in this case. The Investigation Officer failed to seize the phones of both the deceased and her brother PW-6 and also to collect the CDR relating to the said two phones to prove that there was a phone call from the deceased to PW-6 in the evening of the previous day i.e. on 31/12/2009. No explanation is offered for Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:54:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined non-seizure of the said two cell phones and for non-production of the CDR with the certificate under Section 64(B)(4) of the Evidence Act. So, adverse inference is to be drawn under Section 114(G) of the Evidence Act for withholding the said material evidence. The inference that could be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the case is that if the said cell phones are seized and produced with the CDR details that the said evidence would be unfavourable to the prosecution and as such the said evidence was deliberately suppressed. So, as the said material fact that she was subjected to harassment with any such demand for money of Rs.50,000/- on 31/12/2009 before her death, it cannot be held or presumed even that she committed suicide because of any such harassment. So, the presumption under Section 113(B) cannot be invoked in the given facts and circumstance of the case.
14. Although PW-6 who is the brother of the deceased stated in his evidence that earlier about seven to eight months back that he paid Rs.5,000/- to A-2 who is the father-in-law in the presence of A-3 who is the mother-in-law as per their demand and that he paid Rs.10,000/- to A-1 on his demand during the Diwali days, the said incidents even if true, took place long Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:54:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined back prior to her suicidal death. So, these two sporadic incidents even if true which took place long prior to her suicidal death cannot be connected to the present incident of suicidal death to hold that she committed suicide because of the said incidents.
15. Further, in the instant case, except stating that there was a demand for the said sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- and same was paid, there is nothing to indicate on record that she was subjected to any physical cruelty by beating her or subjecting her to any physical harassment. So, by a mere demand for a paltry amount of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- etc., it cannot be held that the alleged harassment even if true is so severe or grave so as to necessarily drive the deceased to commit suicide.
16. Therefore, we have not hesitation to hold that the offence under Section 304(B) is not made out or proved against the accused in this case.
17. Even as regards the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is not the case where the accused have directly instigated deliberately or aided the Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:54:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined deceased to commit suicide to hold them responsible for her suicidal death by abetting her to commit suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that even the presumption under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked in the present case. As noticed supra, although the suicidal death of the deceased took place within a period of seven years of the marriage, even to establish the guilt under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be shown that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused.
19. The expression 'cruelty' used under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act shall be as defined under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. As per explanation appended to Clause-(a) of Section 498A, when the accused exhibits a grave conduct which have the effect of driving the woman to cause danger to her life or limb or to drive her to commit suicide then it amounts to subjecting her to cruelty and as per Clause-(b) when there is harassment relating to demand made for money, property or valuable security then it amount to Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:54:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined subjecting her to cruelty.
20. As noticed supra, the demand of Rs.50,000/- is not proved in this case. As regards the demand of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- long prior to the suicidal death, except the sole testimony of PW-6 who is the brother of the deceased, we do not have any other evidence in support of his testimony. The mother of the deceased who is examined as PW-7 did not say that any such demand was made to her. Her evidence is only hear-say. So, in the absence of any supporting evidence relating to a sporadic events which took place long prior to the suicidal death of the deceased, it is not safe to place reliance on the sole testimony of PW-6 to come to any conclusion that it is because of those demands that she committed suicide. No such presumption can be invoked under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
21. We have already held that there is no allegation or evidence to prove that there is any physical violence or harassment to which the deceased was subjected in the hands of the accused. So, a mere demand of Rs.5,000/- and Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:54:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Rs.10,000/- even if true, cannot be construed as a conduct of serious and grave nature to hold it as an act of cruelty which has driven the deceased to commit suicide because of the said incidents. In the context, one should not lose right of the fact relating to normal wear and tear of a family life. Petty quarrels and family bickerings between a couple cannot be construed as an act of harassment or cruelty. So, when a wife, because of petty family disputes or differences, either because of her sensitive nature or emotional temperament, takes any extreme decision of putting an end to her life by committing suicide at the spur of the moment, it cannot be presumed that she committed suicide because of the harassment caused to her by the accused as required under the law. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the offences under Section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code are also not proved. There is absolutely no evidence on record to prove that A-1 to A-3 harassed the deceased. Therefore, the offence under Section 306 is also not proved. Similarly there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the accused beat the deceased. So, the charge under Section 323 is also not proved.
Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:54:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined
22. Upon considering the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same, the trial court arrived at a right conclusion and recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. We do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned judgment of acquittal. It is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. On reappraisal of the evidence on record, we are also of the same view that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for any of the charges levelled against them. Therefore, the impugned judgment is sustainable under law and it calls no interference in these appeals.
23. Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed confirming the judgment of the acquittal of the trial court. Bail bond of the accused, if any, shall stand discharged.
24. Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the concerned court.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J) (D. M. VYAS, J) ILA Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:54:24 IST 2025