Gujarat High Court
M.D.Luhar vs State Of Gujarat on 21 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/266/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 06/08/2025
Pronounced On : 21/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 266
of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
M.D.LUHAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
A R ROCKEY(7592) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
KHUSHI P JADAV(7351) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. HARDEEP L MAHIDA(7112) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MR YV BRAHMBHATT(206) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR. H K PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
1 Rule. Learned APP Mr. H K Patel for the respondent -
State and learned advocate Mr. Y. V. Brahmbhatt for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 waives service of Rule.
2 The present revision application has been preferred by the present petitioner who is the original complainant Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/266/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (For short "Cr.P.C") directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.4), Kachchh at Bhuj in Sessions Case No.29 of 2002 by judgment dated 07.03.2007 acquitting all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 In the present revision application, during the pendency of the revision application, Mr. Dineshkumar Virji Panchal - respondent no.4 - original accused no.3 and Smt. Veluben @ Parvatiben Virji Panchal - original accused no.4 - have been expired and the revision application qua respondent nos.4 and 5 have already been abated and so far as the present respondent nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they are the brother-in-law of the deceased.
4 The short facts leading to the present revision application are as under:
4.1 The original complainant - present applicant has lodged one FIR before the Nakhatrana Police Station against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the IPC against the original accused nos.1 to 4 and the same has been registered before the Nakhatrana Police Station vide C.R. No.123 of 2001 and the FIR is lodged for making Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/266/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined allegation regarding causing mental and physical harassment to the deceased - Pramilaben and because of the mental torture by the in-laws and the husband, she commits suicide on 04.12.2001. Pursuant to the registration of the said FIR, the investigation has been carried out and the charge sheet has been filed against the all accused persons and subsequently, case has been committed to the Sessions Court and it was given Sessions Case No.29 of 2002.
4.2 In the Court, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses mainly no. (1) Dr. Amalkumar Verma vide Exhibit-8 (2) Panch witness - Chhagan Thakkar vide Exhibit-11, (3) Panch witness - Chandulal Patel vide Exhibit-13, (4) Complainant - Manjibhai Lohar vide Exhibit-16, (5) Witness - Dhanlaxmiben Lohar vide Exhibit-19, (6) Witness - Ashokbhai Pnachal vide Exhibit-
20, (7) Investigating Officer - Iqbal Qureshi vide Exhibit- 21, (8) Witness - Manubha Sodha vide Exhibit-23, (9) Witness - Iliyas Iqqbalbhai Mansuri vide Exhibit-24, (10) Witness - Kalaben Pitroda vide Exhibit-26, (11) Witness - Jivubha Sodha vide Exhibit-27, (12) Witness - Gajubha Jadeja vide Exhibit-29, (13) Investigating Officer - Girishbhai Chauhan vide Exhibit-30 and after appreciating the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution and considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for respective parties, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit all the accused from the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/266/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined 114 of the IPC on 07.03.2007. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment of acquittal, the present revision application has been preferred.
5 Heard the learned advocate Ms. Khushi P. Jadav for the applicant - original complainant. It was submitted by her that learned Sessions Judge has gravely erred while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal and the judgment is against the facts on record and said position of law. In this regard, the learned Judge gravely erred in doubting the veracity of the complaint on the ground that though the complainant had been informed of the incident late at night and he immediately rushed to there with brothers and thereafter, the complainant returned back to his village and even he was present when the Post Mortum has been conducted. Even after the complainant has not given its complaint and the complainant has been given afternoon, at around 03:00 O'clock. Further, she has submitted that the complainant being the brother of the deceased was informed of the incident and he reached to the villages and found the body which is fully burnt and it is most natural to go back to his home at the time of Post Mortum and subsequently, he filed the complainant, so, it cannot be said that the FIR has been lately filed. Further, she has submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in coming to the conclustion that ingredient of Section 498(A) are not proved beyond doubt. Even from the evidence of the witnesses, it was coming out that Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/266/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined more particularly, husband of the deceased i.e. the respondent no.3 did not have any regular employment and therefore, this lead to quarrel between the family members of the husband and the deceased and which, in turn, lead to the deceased being mental and physically being tortured by the family of the husband and also, learned Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that the letter dated 03.12.2001 along with other letter produced by the original complainant and the said letter has been rejected by the learned Trial Court on flimsy grounds that the letter itself appears to be suspicious and the existence of the letter was never stated in the complaint. Further, it was submitted that the letter was written by the deceased to the applicant - the present applicant day before the incident and in the letter, clearly described how she had been harassed and she had by mistake attended a Bhagwat Katha in Gandhidham, while she was in her menstrual periods and that is how she had been beaten by her husband and family members and submitted that the said letter has not been considered by the Court below. Further, the prosecution witness clearly establishes that deceased was subjected to the mental and physical torture and because of that, she had committed suicide by burning herself and this has been supported by the Post-Mortum report and also, considering this, the judgment of the learned Sessions Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused are to be convicted.
Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:05 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/266/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined 6 On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Y. V. Brahmbhatt for the respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 submitted that pending revision application, the husband of the deceased - Mr. Dineshbhai is already been expired and the mother-in-law of the deceased - Veluben Panchal is already been expired and qua these two, the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, the revision application has been abated. So far as the respondent nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they are the brother-in-law and as such there is no allegation against the present accused in the whole case, learned Sessions Court after considering and the appreciating the evidence, has acquitted the accused, hence, the present revision application is required to be rejected.
7 Learned APP - Mr. H K Patel has submitted that against the judgment of acquittal, the State has not preferred any appeal and necessary order may be passed.
8 After hearing the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and perusing the judgment passed by the learner trial Court and perusing the Record and Proceedings of the case, it is not in dispute that the present revision application has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Court. In this regard, it is required to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kallu @ Masih vs. Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/266/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined State of Madhya Pradesh, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"7. The circumstances in which an appellate court will interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by a trial court are reiterated in Bhim Singh V/s. State of Haryana, thus:-
"Before concluding, we would like to point out that this Court in a number of cases has held that an appellate court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial court though entitled to reappreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. In other words, if from the same set of evidence two views are possible and if the trial court has taken one view on the said evidence, unless the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial court is not based on any material on record, it should not merely because another conclusion is possible reverse the finding of the trial court."
8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/266/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court."
9 So, from it, it appears that the law with regards to the acquittal appeal is well crystallized and normally in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it is finally culminated when case ends in the acquittal and the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence and learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re-appreciate the evidence by the appellate court. After re-appreciation, the view taken by the learned trial court was a possible view. There is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
10 In the light of the above settled legal position and considering the evidence of the prosecution, the present case in hand is concerned, as per the case of the prosecution, the deceased - Premilaben on 04.12.2001 or prior to that, she was subjected to the mental and physical torture and taunting by the in-laws regarding the household work or small petty issues and despite of the marriage life of 20 years, no any child has been born Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/266/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined and that is why, she was subjected to the taunting and because of that, on 04.12.2001 at about 00:30 A.M., at Moti Virani Village, at her matrimonial home, she has burnt herself by pouring a kerosene on her body and because of that, she committed suicide and because of burnt injury, she was succumbed to the injury and died and pursuant to that, the present petitioner - complainant _ Manjibhai who is the brother of the deceased, filed the complaint against the husband - mother-in-law and two brother-in-law on 04.05.2001 before the Nakhatrana Police Station. Initially, police has registered the accidental death no.47 of 2001 and it was investigated by A.S.I. and subsequently, FIR came to be registered against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the IPC.
11 As discussed above, the facts of the case has already been discussed above and to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Now, it is required to consider that during the pendency of this revision application, husband of the deceased and the mother-in-law of the deceased had already been expired and the revision is abated against them. Now, in this regard, it is now required to consider the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court. The learned Trial Court has, after considering, that it is an admitted position that the marriage life of the deceased and the original accused no.3 - Dineshbhai Panchal is of 20 Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/266/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined years, so, the allegation against the accused pertaining to Section 306 of the IPC but as the marriage life is of 20 years, there cannot be presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act and considering this, learned Sessions Court has appreciated the evidence that the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the FIR or the complaint of the said incident has been given before the police on the second day of the incident and it is coming on record from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the complainant and the relatives of the deceased who has already been informed regarding the incident in the night itself. They have rushed to the place of the incident and they were present when the Post-Mortum of the deceased were performed till then, they have not given any complaint. Further, as per the deposition, witness has stated that deceased was subjected to the mental and physical torture and they came to know from the other people of that village.
12 Further, learned Sessions Judge also recorded the finding that there is an allegation of physical and mental cruelty is concerned, so far as Section 498(A) of the IPC is concerned, learned Trial court has recorded the finding that the marriage life is of 20 years and initially, no child was born because of this marriage and that is why, the deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture and taunting but after the marriage spam of 16 years, one child was born, so, the case of the prosecution is that because of child has not been born Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/266/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined during marriage life that is why the deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture which has not been supported by the evidence. Further, other witnesses who is a relative of the deceased mainly the brother-in-law of the deceased is concerned, the point of quarrel between the husband and wife is pertained to the husband was unemployed and he was not trying to earn anything and because of this, the quarrel has been taken place and the allegation is pertained to husband and the mother-in-law only. Looking to the judgment is concerned, so far as the husband of the deceased and the mother-in-law of the deceased - the original accused nos.3 and 4 have already been expired and during the pendency of the revision application. Looking to the overall evidence before learned Sessions Court, there is no whisper of allegation against the present respondent nos.2 and 3 - the original accused nos.1 and 2. Further, learned Sessions Court, after considering all the evidences of the witnesses, come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that there was abatement as provided under Section 107 of the IPC by the accused person to commit an offence under Section 306. Learned Trial Court has also recorded the finding that the prosecution has not beyond reasonable doubt, proved that the deceased was subjected to the mental and physical cruelty was of such level that the deceased had no other option but to commit the suicide and this has not come on record. Further, from the evidence and the cross-examination of the police Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/266/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined witnesses, it has come on record that the mother-in-law and father-in-law and both brother-in-laws of the deceased are residing separately. So, even the deceased and husband and the other family members are residing separately, so, considering this, learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the ingredient of Section 306 of the IPC as no evidence has been coming forward that accused has abated the commission of the offence of suicide and even nothing has come on record that the deceased was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and accused has abated the commission of crime has not been proved by the prosecution by examining the witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge has also recorded that so far the death of the deceased was because of the burnt injury whether it was suicidal death, accidental death or homicidal death and this opinion has not been given by the doctor and on this overall consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused persons from the offence punishable under Section 498(A), 306 and 114 of the IPC, hence, considering this, the overall evidence produced by the prosecution witness is concerned, the accused cannot be convicted and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court is just and proper and does not require any interference.
13 In view of the above legal settled position, learned Sessions Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/266/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Learned Sessions Judge has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is also of the considered opinion that learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charge leveled against them and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Sessions Court and this Court is in complete agreement to the findings and ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the acquittal, the present revision application is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
14 The present revision application is dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.4), Bhuj at Kachchh in Sessions Case No.29 of 2002 by judgment dated 07.03.2007 acquitting the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed.
15 Rule is discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) JCP Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:18:05 IST 2025