Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Devendrasinh @ Devaji Keshaji Parmar on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 8 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd./-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DEVENDRASINH @ DEVAJI KESHAJI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3
BAILABLE WARRANT UN-SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
2,4
MR PIYUSH B TRIVEDI(12401) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MS RENU D CHAUDHARY(6065) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,3,4,5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge (Main Court), Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 92 of 2009 on 16-08-2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence for the Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC). 1.1] By an order dated 18-09-2023, bailable warrants were issued against all the respondents and as per the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, the respondent No. 2 - Keshaji Chhatrasinh Parmar expired on 13-11-2010 and the respondent No. 4 - Shardaben Kanusinh Chauhan expired on 10-01-2023 and the copies of their death certificates, have been sent along with the report of PSI, Adalaj Police Station, Dehgam, District: Gandhinagar. In view of the same, the appeal qua respondent No. 2 - Keshaji Chhatrasinh Parmar and respondent No. 4 - Shardaben Kanusinh Chauhan has become infructuous.
1.2] During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent No. 5 expired and hence the appeal qua the respondent No. 5 was abated by an order dated 02.07.2025.
1.3] The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused"
as they stood in the rank and file in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2] The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
2.1] The accused No. 1 was married to Vaishali - the daughter of the complainant Ambalal Gandhaji Vaghela. The accused No. 2 is the father-in-law, accused No. 3 is mother-in-law, accused No. 4 is sister-in- law and the accused No. 5 is brother-in-law of deceased Vaishali. The accused, in collusion with each other, would mentally and physically harass Vaishali - the daughter of the complainant Ambalal Gandhaji Vaghela and would make illegal demands on her and the harassment was to such an extent that Vaishali along with her daughter Pinal @ Pintu, aged 2 years, fell into the Karai Canal on 3-9-2009 and committed suicide. The complaint was filed by the complainant Ambalal Gandhaji Vaghela at the Police Station, Adalaj under Sections 306, 498(A), 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the IPC, which was registered at Adalaj Police Station I- C.R.No.190 of 2009 on 9-9-2009 2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Gandhinagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessios Case Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined No. 92 of 2009.
2.3] The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 11 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 12 and Exh.16 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4] The prosecution produced nine oral and eight documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.42, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined leveled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the appellant- State and Ms. Renu Chaudhary for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Aditya Jadeja has Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. That the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution, which is corroborated by the deposition of the medical officer and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The complainant as well as the prosecution have fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
6. Learned advocate Ms. Renu Chaudhary appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submits that the judgments and order has been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-State must be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:- Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "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 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". (emphasis supplied) From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 iTimes New Romann the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize 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 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 Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if 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.
9. As the appeal pertains to a case under Section 306 of the IPC, it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs The State of Madhya Pradhesh Criminal Appeal No. 221/2025 (@ SLP(Cr) No. 11868/2023) passed on 17th January, 2025 which is as under:
11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
"306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
"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."
As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly - 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.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:-
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarreling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. ..."
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held as under:-
Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined "12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) "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 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 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."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record where-from an inference of the appellant accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."
Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
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." [Emphasis supplied]
10. In light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence on record of the case is appreciated and the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 - Dr. Kalpesh Hiralal Parikh at Exhibit 18 and the witness is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar on 3-9-2009 and he along with panel doctor, Dr. D.F.Parmar conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Vaishaliben. The witness has produced the post-mortem note at Exhibit 19 and has stated that the as per column No.17, no injuries were found in the external part of the body and the cause of death in their opinion was asphyxia due to drowning. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that there were no marks of injury on the dead body of the deceased and rigor mortis was not present on the body and hence, it could not be opined as to when the death had taken place. The witness has also admitted that, if a person slips and falls into the water, death could be caused by asphyxia.Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 10.1] Prosecution Witness No. 2 -Ambalal Gandhaji Waghela examined at Exhibit 26 is the father of the deceased Vaishali and the complainant, who has stated that his daughter Vaishali @ Vershaben was married to the accused No. 1 more than 7 years prior to the incident as per the customes of the community. The accused would mentally and physically harass Vaishali and had demanded an amount of Rs 50,000/- from her. His daughter had telephoned him and informed him that they were demanding for Rs 50,000/- and he had called his son-in-law and daughter and had given an amount of Rs 20,000/- to his daughter. After some time, the accused No. 1 and his daughter went to reside separately but the disputes went on and once again the accused demanded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as they wanted to complete their unconstructed house. On 02-09-2009, he was at Nadiad and the aunty of the accused No. 1 told him that Vaishali has left the house and was not at Dabhoda and he had gone to the Ahmedabad City Police Commissioner and Sabarmati Police Station and had given the information that his daughter was missing. They were looking for his daughter and his son Jigar went to find Vaishali at the Karai Canal and the workers told him that a dead body was found at the Adalaj Canal. They went to the police station and found that the dead body was of his daughter and the dead body of the minor daughter was found from the Jaspur Canal. The witness has Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined produced the complaint at Exhibit 27. In the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he was informed by his son-in-law, i.e. the accused No. 1, that his daughter was missing and he had given a complaint on 4-9-2009 at the Sabarmati Police Station against the accused No. 1, accused No. 2 and one Ranjitsingh. In the present complaint, Ranjitsinh Poonamsinh, who was the mediator for the marriage of his daughter, has not been made an accused and the application given to Sabarmati Police Station on 4-9- 2009, was given as per the advice of his advocate. The funeral rites of his daughter and granddaughter were on 5-9-2009 and the witness has admitted that the accused No. 3 was aged and the accused No. 2 was more than 70 years old and the accused No. 4 was married 20 years ago. The witness has also admitted that his daughter and the accused No. 1 would come often to his house and he too would go to Dabhoda. The accused No. 5 was residing separately and he does not know when the amount of Rs.50,000/- was demanded and when the amount of Rs.20,000/- was given. His daughter did not have a mobile phone and he would call on the mobile phone of the accused No. 1 and speak to his daughter and he does not know in whose name cellphone No. 98257- 91452 and No. 97143-54839 are registered. The witness has admitted that one Himmatsinh Parmar is a neighbour of his daughter at her Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined matrimonial house and he does not know whether there was a tattoo mark of "HP" on his daughter's forearm. The witness has admitted that the photographs and love letters were destroyed and has refused to make any clarification about the tattoo mark of "HP" found on his daughter's forearm.
10.2] Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Jeevatben Ambalal Thakor examined at Exhibit 28 is the mother of the deceased Vaishali and wife of the complainant Ambalal Gandhaji Vaghela and has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that the accused No. 4 was married more than 20 years prior to the incident and her daughter would come to her house often.
10.3] Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Jigarbhai Ambalal Vaghela examined at Exhibit 29 is the brother of deceased Vaishali and the son of the complainant and has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had recorded a statement on 05-09-2009 and prior to the incident, his sister Vaishali had resided at their place for 7 to 8 months.
Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 10.4] Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Kumarpal Ambalal Vaghela
examind at Exh. 30 is the elder brother of deceased Vaishali and son of the complainant and he has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that the unfortunate incident occurred 20 days after the accused took his sister to her matrimonial house.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that the funeral rites of his sister were on 05-09-2009 and his father had filed a complaint at the Sabarmati Police Station on 04-09-2009 against three persons i.e. the accused No. 1, accused No. 2 and Morvayi Ranjitsinh. The second complaint was a typed complaint, in which, Ranjitsinh was not an accused and he could not remember in which month or date the amount of Rs.50,000/- was demanded for by the accused. He does not know where did his father get the money from and the witness has admitted that there was a tattoo of "HP" on his sister's hand. No complaint of ill treatment was filed by his sister against the accused during her married life. 10.5] Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Jeetendrabhai Gandaji Waghela examined at Exhibit 31 is the uncle of deceased Vaishaliben and the younger brother of the complainant and has supported the case of the prosecution.
Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
During the cross-examination by the learned adocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that the friend of his elder brother was an advocate and he had written the complaint that was given in the police station. The witness has also admitted that the accused No. 5 was residing separately from his niece.
10.6] Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Manjulaben Bikhabhai Solanki examined at Exhibit 32 is the PSO of Adalaj Police Station and she has registered the complaint. The witness has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exhibit 33. The witness has, during the cross- examination, the witness has admitted that the complaint was a typed complaint given on 9-9-2009, whereas the unfortunate incident had occurred on 04-09-2009.
10.7] Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Hiralben Girishkumar Thakor examined at Exhibit 34 is the sister of deceased Vaishali and she has supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that on 01- 09-2009, her sister Vaishali had come to her house in the afternoon and was weeping and told her that she was fed up as the accused were asking for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from her father. She left and went to her house at around 4 p.m. and between 10.30 p.m. and 11.00 p.m., the accused No. 1 telephoned her to inquire from her as to whether Vaishali Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined had come to her house. When she refused, the accused No. 1 got angry and hence she switched off the phone and on 4-9-2009 between 7 p.m. and 7.30 p.m., her father telephoned her to inform her that a dead body was found at a Adalaj and they were going to the Civil Hospital and the dead body was identified as that of her sister Vaishali.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she too is residing at Dabhoda and the accused No. 4 was married at Labad and was residing there with her two children. When her sister Vaishali came to her house on 1-9-2009, she did not inform her father as Vaishali had told her not to inform her father. Vaishali had returned to her matrimonial house about one week prior to the incident and there is a police station at Dabhoda. 10.8] Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Mukeshbhai Jagdishchandra Solanki examined at Exhibit 36 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
In the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that an Accidental Death was registered for the incident, which was enquired into by P.S.I. Shri. Dabhi and he had received the papers and in the papers of Accidental Death, no cognisable offence was made out. The Accidental Death was registered at No. 55 of Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 2009 and in the enquiry of Accidental Death No. 55 of 2009, there was no evidence that the in-laws of Vaishali were mentally or physically harassing by her and demanding for any money from them. The complainant had given his statement on 05-09-2009 and the dead body of Vaishali was found on 03-09-2009 and the funeral rites were conducted on 04-09-2009. The statement of the complainant Ambalal Gandabhai Vaghela was recorded on 05-09-2009. In the inquest panchnama on the dead body of deceased Vaishali, ornaments were found and from the clothes on the dead body, two papers were found and in one paper, "Nardipur Mobile No. 97143-54839" and in the other paper, "Tino Mobile No. 98257-91452" was written. Both the papers were mentioned in the inquest panchnama in the Accident Death No. 55 / 2009 and during investigation, he did not investigate about these two numbers or what was the relationship of the mobile numbers with deceased Vaishali. The application was given to the Sabarmati Police Station on 4-9-2009 was a typed application complaint and the statement of the complainant Ambalal Gandabai and Jigarbhai Ambalal was recorded on 5-9-2009 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kalol Division. At the inquest panchnama PSI Dabhi was present, but no application was given to PSI Dabhi and the complainant did not come to the police station to file any complaint prior to 9-9- 2009. The witness has also admitted that in the Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined application given on 4-9-2009 at Sabarmati Police Station, the complainant had named Ranjitsinh Poonamsinh, who was the mediator for the marriage of his daughter with the accused No. 1 and prior to this incident, there was no complaint filed by the deceased or by her father regarding any ill treatment given to her. In the post mortem note at Exhibit 19, it is mentioned that a tattoo mark HP was found on the right forearm, but no investigation regarding this tattoo mark was made by him. The deceased Vaishali was residing at Dabhoda, but he has not recorded the statements of any neighbours at Dabhoda. 11] On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the evidence on record, the incident has occurred on 3-9-2009 or any time prior to 03-09-2009 when the dead body of deceased Vaishali was found from the Karai Canal and the dead body of her minor daughter Pinal @ Pintu was found from the Jaspur Cacal, Vaishali went missing with her daughter on 1-9-2009 and as per the panchnama produced at Exhibit 24, which is the panchnama, wherein the complainant has identified the dead body of his daughter Vaishali on 5-9- 2009 between 8:00 hours to 8:30 hours and the panchnama has been drawn by PSI, Adalaj Police Station. As per the complainant, the accused had demanded for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and he had given Rs.20,000/- to his daughter, but there is no iota of evidence regarding the Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined date, month, place or time when the amount was demanded and given. The complainant has admitted that the amount was given to his daughter and there is no iota of evidence that the amount was given to the accused. In the entire evidence, it has come on record that the complainant had given an application on 4-9-2009 at the Adalaj Police Station but the application has not been produced on record and Accidental Death No. 55 of 2009 was also registered, which was inquired into by PSI, Shri.Dabhi but the documents Accidental Death No. 55 of 2009 have not been produced on record. After identifying the dead body of his daughter Vaishali on 5-5-2009, the complaint, the statement of the complainant Ambalal Gandhaji Waghela and his son Jigar Ambalal Waghela were recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police but no allegations of any ill treatment was made by them. Thereafter, on 9-9- 2009, the complaint has been filed and there is no explanation regarding the delay in filing the complaint. The Investigating Officer has admitted that during investigation, he did not inquire or record the statements of any neighbours of deceased Vaishali and there is no evidence as to whether there was in fact any ill treatment to the deceased by the accused. Moreover, it has also emerged on record that as per the postmortem note at Exhibit 19, a tattoo with HP mark was found on the right forearm of the deceased and there is evidence that one Himmatsinh Parmar was the Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined neighbour of deceased Vaishali and the complainant has himself admitted that the photographs and love letters of his daughter Vaishali were destroyed but there is no investigation in this direction by the Investigating Officer. Moreover, it has also emerged on record that in the inquest panchaama drawn in Accidental Death No. 55 of 2009, it was found that ornaments were found on the dead body of deceased Vaishali and two chits were found and in one chit, "Nardipur Mobile No. Mobile No. 97143-54839" and in the other chit "Tino Mobile No. 98257-91452"
was written but the Investigating Officer has not done any investigation with regard to the these cellphone numbers.
12] In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (Supra) and Mahendra Awase (supra), the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against him. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of extending benefit of doubt and acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
13] The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Main Court), Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 92 of 2009 on 16-08-2010 is hereby confirmed.
14] Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd./-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:59 IST 2025