Gujarat High Court
Dinesh Bhanushankarbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 09/07/2025
Pronounced On : 01/10/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 929 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DINESH BHANUSHANKARBHAI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS. JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service on behalf of Respondent - State.
2. The present revision application has been preferred by the present applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed against the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No.92 of Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined 2002 convicting the present appellant no.1 - Dinesh Bhanushankarbhai for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and also fine of Rs.1,000/- and also convicted under Section 498A read with Section 114 of the IPC and sentenced him to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of fine, one month simple imprisonment and convicted the present applicant no.2 - Jayaben Bhanushankarbhai for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced him to 2 years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of fine, one month simple imprisonment was awarded by the Judgment dated 04.11.2004 in Sessions Case No.92 of 2002 and the said judgment of conviction has been challenged by the present applicants before the Fast Track Judge, Junagadh by preferring Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2004 and the said appeal of the present applicant nos.1 and 2 came to be dismissed by judgment dated 19.11.2005 and the judgment of conviction passed in Sessions Case No.92 of 2002 has been confirmed and being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment in Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined the appeal, present revision application has been preferred.
3. The factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. As per the case of the prosecution, the present applicant no.1 is the son of the applicant no.2 and the marriage of the present applicant no.1 was performed with the sister of the original complainant i.e. Bhavnaben and Bhavanaben was subjected to physical and mental torture by the accused person and subsequently, because of that, on 02.04.2002, the sister of the complainant - wife of the applicant no.1 - Bhavanaben has committed suicide at her parental home by consuming poison and subsequently, complaint came to be given by the complainant against the present applicant - accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC before the Bilkha Police Station and the same was registered vide C.R. No.13 of 2002. After filing of the FIR, investigation has been carried out and after completion of investigation, chargesheeet has been filed and it was numbered as Sessions Case No.92 of 2002 and in the trial, before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh, The present Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined applicant no.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and Section 498A read with Section 114 of the IPC while applicant no.2 who is mother-in-law of the deceased, has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC but she was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 114 of the IPC by judgment dated 04.11.2004 and the said judgment of conviction challenged by preferring Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2004 before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Junagadh and the appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment of conviction in Sessions Case No.92 of 2002 has been confirmed by judgment dated 19.11.2005. Against that, the present revision application has been preferred.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Zubin F. Bharda for the applicant - accused and it has been submitted by him that the judgment and order passed by the Courts below are bad in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below were erroneous on the facts as well as on the law. However, he Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined submitted that Courts below have failed to appreciate serious infirmities in the prosecution case also. Further, he has submitted that FIR and its contents become explicitly clear that the whole story made out by the complainant seems to be fabricated and no indication, thereof, in the deposition of the witnesses who have not supported the case of the prosecution also. Further, the Courts below have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Bhavanaben committed suicide upon being frustrated by the torture and ill treatment meted to her by present applicant. Moreover, testimony of the witnesses as well as the complainant it becomes absolutely clear that there was no iota of evidence of any type of ill treatment which can be termed as a torturing. Further, there was no instigation or abatement on the part of the present applicant no.1 who commits of suicide. It is an admitted position that the deceased has committed suicide at her parental home and there was no abatement on the part of the present applicant - accused. Further, he has submitted that no evidence of direct connection between the action of the present applicant and the deceased committed to suicide and the Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined ingredient of the Section 306 of the IPC has not been satisfied and it has been coming on record that before Committing suicide, she stated that on the earlier date of committing suicide, the applicant no.1 has stated to the deceased that not to put sindoor on her head of the applicant, except this, there is no other allegation. It cannot be termed as an abatement to commit suicide. Further, from the evidence, it has been established that so far as the case of the prosecution is that there is an oral DD of the applicant but it is a weak piece of evidence and the oral DD has not been supported, hence also, the present revision is required to be allowed and both judgments of conviction passed by both Courts below is required to be set aside. Further, Mr. Zubin Bharda in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamalakar Vs. State of Karnataka and also relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Rameshbhai Popatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2016 (0) AIJEL-HC 234136 and submitted that the present revision application is required to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt has Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined vehemently opposed and submitted that there is a concurrent finding recorded by both Courts below and considering this, there is no illegality has been committed by the Court and there is no judgment of both Courts have not been perverse, hence, no interference is required, hence, the revision application is required to be rejected.
7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for respective parties and perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court. Perused Record & Proceedings.
8. So far as Section powers under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C is concerned, it is High Court's power in the revision exercises supervisory jurisdiction of restricted nature and it cannot re-appreciate the evidence as second appeal and for the purpose of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the Magistrate and Sessions Judge was correct.
9. The present case in hand is concerned, the facts of the case has already been narrated above. Now in this Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined regard, it is required to consider the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court, the prosecution has examined Dr.Dhirendra Pranlal vide Exhibit-10, complainant - Chhelshankar bavalal vide Exhibit-14, Jamanadas Mohanlal Vachhani vide Exhibit- 16, Bavalal Danabhai vide Exhibit-18, Shardaben Bavalal vide Exhibit-19 and Jitendra Narshibhai vide Exhibit-20 and Dinesh Parsottambhai vide Exhibit-21 and Investigating Officer - Vajesinh Solanki vide Exhibit-45 has been examined. So far as the present case in hand is concerned, it is not in dispute that so far as per the P.M. note which has been produced vide Exhibit-12 is concerned, as per the cause of death is concerned, death of the Bhavanaben was because of she has consumed the pesticides and because of that, she was died and so, the death of Bhavanaben is concerned, it is not in dispute. Now, the question is whether the present applicants - accused nos.1 and 2 have abated the commission of the offence and whether the deceased Bhavanaben was subjected to mental and physical cruelty or not that is required to be considered at this stage. In this regard, now, it is required to consider that it is an admitted Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined position and it emerges from the evidence produced before the Court below that the the marriage life is of 4 years subsequently, after the marriage, the deceased Bhavanaben came to her parental home and subsequently, settlement was arrived and again, she went to her matrimonial home. Further, on the date of an incident, prior to previous day against on that day, the present applicant no.1 along with the deceased - Bhavanaben came to her parental home and at that time, the applicant no.1 stated to the deceased that now, do not put sindoor of his name on her head. In this regard, the prosecution has examined the complainant - Chhelshankar Bavalal vide Exhibit-14 and as per the statement that the applicant no.1 has put the deceased Bhavanaben to her parental home and thereafter, the applicant no.1 went back to her home and subsequently on the third day, the deceased Bhavanaben went to the field of his father and then, she consumed this Pesticides and at that time, she stated that her husband - Dineshbhai has told him that now, do not put sindoor of his name on her head and subsequently, she was brought to the Government Hospital, Junagadh for Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined treatment but she was declared dead and the said fact has been narrated by the other witnesses also. So, the only allegation is that it is an undisputed fact that the deceased has committed suicide at her parental home and the allegation is that the applicant has told the deceased that do not put sindoor of his name on her head, except this, there is no other allegation has been coming forward. Even from the other witnesses' deposition is concerned, contradiction are coming regarding the deceased Bhavanaben as stated anything to the complainant and his brother and other family members regarding this.
10. In this regard, it is required to consider that so far as the Section 306 of the IPC is concerned, it pertains to the abatement of the suicide. So, to prove the charge under Section 306 of the IPC, prosecution must prove that accused played an active role in the suicide and specifically, accused action must align with one of few criteria Section 107 of the IPC that means either encourage the deceased to take her life conspired with other to insure person commit suicide or acted in a way or failed to act which directly resulted into person's Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined suicide. Now, in this regard, it is required to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamala (Supra) as under:
"7. Applicability of Section 498A IPC. 7.1. Section 498A the IPC penalizes husbands or their relatives who subject a woman to cruelty, with penalties of up to three years' imprisonment and a possible fine. "Cruelty"
encompasses actions that could drive the woman to suicide or cause severe mental or physical harm, and harassment aimed at coercing her or her family into unlawful property or valuable security demands.
8. Applicability of 306 IPC.
8.1. Section 306 deals with abetment of suicide wherein whoever abets the commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine. This provision has to be read with Section 107 IPC which reads as:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation
1.--A person who, by wilful Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of commission of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC. This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide, or acted in a way (or failed to act) which directly resulted in the person's suicide. 8.3. In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh1, this Court has analysed different meanings of "instigation". The relevant para of the said judgement is reproduced herein:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act".
To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case (2001) 9 SCC 618 an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan v. State2, as under:
"43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self- esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
(2011) 3 SCC 626
44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
11. It is required to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Popatbhai (Supra) as under:
"7. In the the instant case, the prosecution had examined as many as seven witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the appellants - accused. However, the material witness i.e. PW1 the complainant Bhutabhai Keshabhai i.e. father of deceased and PW2 Shivabhai Dhulabhai, who happened to be the relative of the deceased, had turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. The complainant Bhutabhai Keshabhai had stated in his evidence before the court that his daughter had committed suicide by setting herself ablaze, however, there was no harassment to her from her inlaws side. As regard the complaint, he has stated that his thumb impression was obtained on the complaint Exh.9, by the police and that, he did not know as to how his daughter had committed Suicide. He has denied the contents of complaint. Similarly, PW2 who happened to Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined be the distant relative of the deceased, had also submitted that there was no harassment to deceased Gitaben from her inlaws side. It is pertinent to note that PW3, Executive Magistrate had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, which is on record at Exh.18, in which it was allegedly stated by the deceased that she had burnt herself because of the harassment from her fatherinlaw, motherinlaw, brotherinlaw (jeth) and sisterinlaw (jethani). The trial court relying upon the said solitary evidence of the dying declaration, had convicted the present appellants by holding that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellants which had led her to commit suicide.
8. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that apart from the fact that the said dying declaration Exh.18, does no give details as regards the harassment or cruelty, which the deceased was subjected to by her inlaws, it is doubtful as to whether the deceased was in right state of mind to give her statement before the Executive Magistrate, inasmuch as, in the complaint, the complainant had stated that his daughter had become unconscious after the alleged incident because of the serious burn injuries. Though the said complainant has not supported the contents of complaint, even if the said complaint is treated as given by the complainant, then also it appears that she had become unconscious after the incident in question. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to rely upon the solitary evidence of dying declaration and convict the appellants by holding that the deceased had committed suicide as he was Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined subjected to cruelty by the appellants accused. It is settled legal position that the abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without any positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. In the instant case, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 306 read with 114 of Indian Penal Code by leading cogent and credible evidence. The Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
12. Considering this, the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in order to bring the case within purview of Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a case of suicide and the commission of the said offence person who said to have abated the commission of the suicide must played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of the suicide. In the present case in hand is concerned and the present applicant no.1 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned, it is an admitted position that incident of suicide has been taken place at the parental home. Further, so far as the Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined deceased committed suicide because the present applicant has stated to her that now, do not put sindoor of his name of her head, except this, nothing has been coming out from the evidence of the witness that she was subjected to the cruelty to such a level that she has no other option but to commit suicide.
13. So far as the Section 498A is concerned, even nothing has been coming on record that she was subjected to any mental or physical cruelty and as discussed above, nothing has been coming from the evidence that the deceased was subjected to any mental or physical cruelty to the extent, was left with no other option except to commit suicide. In that circumstances, only Section 498A of the IPC can be invoked. Hence, considering this, from the evidence before the Court and on this legal aspect, learned both Courts below have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the applicant no.1 has abated the commission of an offence of suicide and applicant nos.1 and 2 have mentally and physically committed cruelty with the deceased. Hence, the findings recorded by both Courts below are not in consonance with the evidence produced by the Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/929/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined prosecution, hence, the order founds to be perverse and requires interference and the present revision application is required to be rejected. The present revision application no.929 of 2005 is hereby allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No.92 of 2002 convicting the present applicant no.1 under Section 306 and 498A of the IPC and convicting the applicant no.2 under Section 498A of the IPC and the judgment passed by learned 5th Fast Track Judge, Junagadh in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2004 confirming the judgment of the Sessions Case No.92 of 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. Both the present applicant nos.1 and 2 herein are acquitted from all the charges. The present revision application is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) JCP Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 10:01:20 IST 2025