Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vinodbhai Baldevbhai Raval on 4 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2630/2009 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2630 of 2009
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VINODBHAI BALDEVBHAI RAVAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 04/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), assailing the judgment and order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 09 of 2009, whereby the accused were acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 498-A, 306, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC"), read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, "the Dowry Act").
2. The short facts emerges from record reads are as under:-
2.1. The deceased married to accused No.1 approximately fifteen years prior to the incident, and the couple had a six-year-old daughter. It is alleged that the deceased was subjected to persistent physical and mental cruelty at the hands of accused No.1 (husband) and her in-laws, accused Nos.2 and 3, due to dissatisfaction with the dowry. About twenty days prior to the incident, an additional Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:50:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2630/2009 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined demand of Rs.20,000/- was allegedly made and paid by the deceased's family to accused No.1. Thereafter, due to continued harassment and cruelty, the deceased committed suicide by coming under a running train. Consequently, an FIR was registered with Detroj Police Station being C.R. No. I-21/08 for offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A, and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Act.
2.2. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Viramgam, against all the accused for the aforementioned offences. The case was thereafter committed to the Sessions Court and placed for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam. The charge was framed and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and produced eight documentary evidences, including the complaint, inquest panchnama, scene of offence panchnama, post-mortem note, and others.
2.3. After the prosecution evidence was concluded, further statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they denied all allegations and claimed false implication, though no defence evidence was led. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court, by judgment and order dated 30.09.2009, acquitted all the accused of the charges. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:50:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2630/2009 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined Procedure Code.
2.4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses and produced documentary evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused:--
ORAL EVIDENCE P.W. NAME OF THE WITNESS EXH.
1 Rawal Rajeshkumar Ratilal 8 2 Ratubhai / Ratilal Arjunbhai Rawal 18 3 Jamnaben Ratilal Rawal 19 4 Ramilaben Mukeshbhai Rawal 20 5 Dashrathbhai 21 6 Tarlikaben Rajeshkumar Mehta 22 7 P.S.I Ravi Nathalal Patel 24 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. PARTICULARS EXH. No. 1 Schedule 10 2 Panchnama of the crime scene 11 3 List of people who came to fill the inquest 12 4 Inquest Panchnama 13 5 Death Certificate Form 14 6 P.M. to do list 15 7 Complaint of the Complainant 17 8 PM Note 23
3. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, at length on behalf of the appellant-State. She has taken me through Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:50:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2630/2009 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined oral and documentary evidence on the record of the case.
3.1. The learned APP submitted that the trial Court has committed a serious error of law and facts in acquitting the accused. It was contended that the judgment suffers from legal infirmities and perversity, and therefore, warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Code.
3.2. The learned APP further submitted that the prosecution has successfully established all the charges leveled against the accused. She submitted that the oral as well as documentary evidence on record unerringly point toward the guilt of the accused, who have committed a heinous offence, and deserve to be convicted and appropriately punished.
3.3. It was further submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously given undue importance to minor discrepancies and contradictions in the oral testimonies of some of the prosecution witnesses, which do not go to the root of the matter. Granting benefit of doubt on such trivial grounds amounts to a perverse and unsustainable finding.
3.4. The learned APP further submitted that the first informant, along with other family members of the deceased, including her uncle and aunt, have categorically deposed that accused No.1, being the husband of the deceased, subjected her to continuous mental and physical harassment.
3.5. The learned APP contended that once the prosecution had Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:50:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2630/2009 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined successfully established the charge of cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC, the trial Court ought to have drawn the statutory presumption under Sections 113A and 113B of the Act. In light of the established facts and surrounding circumstances, the trial Court erred in not convicting the accused under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment of suicide.
3.6. The learned APP further submitted that the prosecution has also proved the demand for dowry through consistent and corroborated testimonies of the deceased's family members. A holistic appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record clearly establishes all charges levelled against the accused. The accused, therefore, deserve to be held guilty and convicted for committing grave offences against a woman, which are not only punishable under law but also shock the conscience of society. In view of the above submissions, the learned APP urged this Hon'ble Court to allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.
4. Before adverting to the merits of the present appeal, it is apposite to recapitulate the settled position of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of decisions, wherein the Court has laid down guiding principles and criteria to be considered while adjudicating appeals against acquittal.
4.1. One of the recent pronouncement, in which, the Supreme Court of India in a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 8 SCC 149 has held as under :-
"39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv. State of Bihar and Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:50:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2630/2009 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined Another, 2022 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering variousearlier judgments and held as below:-
"29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [ Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, 2007 4 SCC 415 ] "
42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:-
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:50:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2630/2009 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined
40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: -
"8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re- appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re- appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-
41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
41.2 That the same misreading/omission to evidence on record; is based on a consider material.
41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.
42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:50:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2630/2009 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined 4.2. After going through evidence available on record and its re- appreciation, following glaring facts and discrepancies found in it which requires to be taken note of:-
a. FIR came to be lodged by the brother of the deceased, wherein general allegations regarding physical and mental cruelty inflicted upon the deceased by the accused were made. However, no specific or individualised allegations were leveled against any particular accused. The averments pertaining to cruelty were vague and lacking in material particulars as to the time, nature, and extent of the alleged acts.
b. The prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence to substantiate the allegation of physical cruelty inflicted by the accused upon the deceased. It is pertinent to note that the marital span between the deceased and accused No.1 was approximately fifteen years, and one girl child was born out of the said wedlock. At the time of the incident, the child was around eight years old, yet her statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, which casts a serious doubt on the thoroughness of the investigation.
c. In his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer candidly admitted that he had not recorded the statements of any neighbours of the accused who could have corroborated the allegations of cruelty. He further admitted that during the course of investigation, he did not come across any information indicating the registration of any prohibition-related offence against accused No.1. Moreover, he conceded that there was no material or evidence collected Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:50:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2630/2009 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined during investigation to suggest that accused No.1 had demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the family of the deceased or that such amount was in fact paid to him.
d. The Investigating Officer - P.W.7, in his cross-examination, further admitted that during the course of investigation, he did not come across or receive any prior complaint of deceased during her lifetime alleging cruelty by the accused upon her, despite the fact of alleged persistent cruelty by accused on her made in FIR that too when the marriage had subsisted for approximately fifteen years. He also confirmed that the families of both the accused and the deceased, including the complainant (brother of the deceased), belonged to the labour class, and as per his investigation, at the relevant time, the accused were engaged in manual labour.
e. It has been duly confirmed by the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, that the post-death rituals of the deceased were performed at the matrimonial home of the deceased, i.e., at the residence of the accused, and no objections were raised by the family members of the deceased at the relevant time.
f. The allegation of demand for dowry remains unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, as the prosecution failed to lead any cogent, reliable, or consistent evidence in this regard. The complainant and other family members of the deceased, who were examined during the course of trial, have admitted during cross-examination that the demand of Rs.20,000/- by accused No.1 and the alleged payment of the said amount, purportedly made 20 days prior to the incident, was not disclosed by them in their respective police statements. It Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:50:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2630/2009 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined was further admitted by them that such allegation was made for the first time during their deposition before the Court.
4.3. It is a well-settled proposition of law that any material fact not disclosed during investigation in the statement under Section 161 of the Code cannot be introduced for the first time during the oral testimony of a witness at the stage of trial. It would be apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab [2024 (3) SCC 164], which is as under:-
"26. If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an Accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular Accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance. [See : (i) Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 (ii) Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (72) ACC 699 (SC). (iii) Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur Vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 422 (iv) Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake, (2003) 3 SCC 175]"
4.4. In view of the above ostensible inconsistencies, the learned trial Court found the oral testimonies of the relatives of the deceased, including the first informant, to be unreliable and lacking its credibility.
4.5. Upon re-appreciation and independent evaluation of the entire evidence on record, this Court is not inclined to take a view different from the one adopted by the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused.
Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:50:11 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2630/2009 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025 undefined 4.6. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (supra), unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are shown to be perverse, manifestly erroneous, arbitrary, or contrary to the settled principles of law, mere possibility of an alternative view is not sufficient to warrant interference by the appellate Court. In the present case, no such perversity or illegality is found in the reasoning assigned by the trial Court while recording the acquittal. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal stands DISMISSED.
5. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. The record and proceedings, if requisitioned, shall be returned to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Jun 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 23:50:11 IST 2025