Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Khodabhai Ishwarbhai Parmar on 3 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1382 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KHODABHAI ISHWARBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 03/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section
378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Nadiad, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial
Court") in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2011 on 25.05.2012, whereby, the
learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence
punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 3 of the Prevention of Dowry Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
1.1] The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused"
in the rank and file as they stood 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:
2.1] The accused No. 1 was the husband of deceased Jayaben,
the accused No. 2 - the younger brother-in-law and the accused No. 3 -
the mother-in-law of deceased Jayaben. Deceased Jayaben was married
to the accused No. 1 about 6 months prior to the unfortunate incident and
all the accused would physically and mentally torture deceased Jayaben
to bring a motorcycle from her parent's house. Jayaben was so fed up of
the torture and on 5th of April 2011 at around 20.00 hours, in the
outskirts of village Vashna Buzarg, she consumed some poisonous
substance and expired during treatment. The complaint was registered by
Prahladbhai Kalabhai Solanki, the father of deceased Jayaben before the
Kheda Town Police Station, which was registered at Kheda Town Police
Station I-C.R. No.47 of 2011 under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the
IPC.
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
completion of investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against the
accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the
case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Nadiad as per the
provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
case was registered Sessios Case No. 120 of 2011.
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. 5 was
framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were
recorded at Exhs. 6 to 8, 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 eight oral evidences and twelve
documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and
after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
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
leveled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, for the appellant State
and learned advocate Mr. Vijay Nangesh for learned advocate for the
respondents - accused. Perused the impugned judgement and order of
acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on
record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has 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. The prosecution has fully proved the case
beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor
contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of
incident. 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 Mr. Vijay Nangesh appearing for the respondents
- original accused submits that the judgment 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
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
acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has
observed as under:
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 in the nature of 'flourishes of language'
to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
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
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 appre-
ciation, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
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."
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
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:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
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."
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. Jatin Yogeshbhai Vadhwana at Exhibit 11
and the witness is the Medical Officer, who was working at CHC Matar
on 6.4.2011 and he had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of
deceased Jayaben Khodabhai Parmar. The witness has stated that there
were no external injuries on the dead body as per column No. 17 and
after the post-mortem was conducted, they had given the opinion
regarding the provisional cause of death as ingestion of some unknown
substance and had reserved the final cause of death for the report of the
FSL and after the persual of the FSL report, the final cause of death was
poisoning due to "Endosulphan". The witness has produced the post-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
mortem note at Exhibit 13 and during the cross-examination by the
learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that there are
several reasons for cause of death due to poisoning and the poison would
take affect from any time between 1 hour to 6 hours. That he could not
conclusively opine whether the poison was ingested on her own or by
force.
10.1] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2
Prahladbhai Kadabhai Solanki at Exhibit 15 and the witness is the father
of the deceased Jayaben and the complainant, who has fully supported
the contents of the complaint. The witness has stated that on 4.4.2011,
his daughter Jaya had come to his house and had stayed the night and
told him that, they were demanding Rs 25,000/- for a motorcycle. He had
made his daughter understand and had also spoken to the accused and
had dropped his daughter at her matrimonial home. Once again, she
came back after two to three days and told him that the accused were
demanding Rs 25,000/- and on the next day, he once again went to her
matrimonial home. On 05.04.2011, his son Arvind received a telephone
call from the accused No. 2 stating that his daughter was taken to the
hospital at Matar and when he went to the Matar hospital, he found that
his daughter had expired. He had filed the complaint, which is produced
at Exhibit 16.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that his financial condition was not good
and he had mortgaged his land before the wedding of his daughter Jaya,
who was married at around 25 years of age. At the time of the incident,
his daughter Jaya was about 30 years old and the accused No. 1 had a
provision store, which was running very well. The financial status of the
accused was very good and hence he had got her married to the accused
No.1. After some time, his daughter Jaya was living with her husband
separately from the accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the accused No.1 and 2
were doing service and also they had agricultural land. Their financial
condition had improved a great deal and after his daughter had expired,
he had a discussion with all his relatives about the steps to be taken and
thereafter they had all gone to the police station. His wife Babyben was
ill for some time and his son Arvind was married 2 to 3 years after the
marriage of Jaya. His daughter Jaya used to come often to her parental
home as her mother was not well and the doctor had advised her not to
do any work. After some time, the wife of his son Arvind bhai had gone
off to her paternal home and in his presence, the accused No. 1 has never
ill-treated his daughter Jaya. His wife never told him that his daughter
had told her that the accused were demanding an amount of Rs.25,000/-
and he did not inform any of his elders that the accused were demanding
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
an amount of Rs.25,000/-. One day prior to the incident, his daughter
Jaya was at his house and the accused No. 1 had telephoned at around
10:00 pm and she had gone to her matrimonial home on the next day.
When the telephone call from the accused No. 1 came, his wife did not
allow his daughter to go to her matrimonial home. After marriage, his
daughter did not have any child and a number of relatives would come to
inquire about the health of his wife and they would ask his daughter
about her child. His wife and daughters had kept a number of vows for
his daughter Jaya to have a child and three months prior to the incident, a
son was born to the younger brother-in-law of his daughter Jaya.
Thereafter she was upset mentally and she was very upset mentally.
10.2] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3
Ilaben Bharatbhai Parmar at Exhibit 17 and the witness is the sister of the
deceased Jayaben, who has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the
accused No. 1 and her sister Jaya would reside separately away from the
accused Nos. 2 and 3. Her mother Babyben was unwell for a long time
and on a number of occasions, her sister Jayaben would come to her
paternal home in the morning and go back in the evening. As she had
children, she could not spend more time in her paternal home looking
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
after her mother and she and Jayaben reside in the same village. When
she went on the date of the incident to the house of Jayaben, the rickshaw
was waiting and they had immediately taken Jayaben in the rickshaw to
the hospital and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had also come to the hospital
and they had tried to save her sister Jayaben. That her sister did not have
any children and she was mentally upset about the same.
10.3] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4
Arvindbhai Prahladbhai Solanki at Exhibit 18 and the witness is the
brother of the deceased Jayaben, who has supported the case of the
prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, he has stated that his sister was never ill-treated by the accused
No. 1 in his presence and after discussion with the relatives, his father
had decided to file the complaint. His sister was very upset because she
did not have a child and one day prior to the incident, his brother-in-law
had phoned and called his sister home, but his mother did not allow her
to go.
10.4] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5
Ganeshbhai Chunibhai Baraiya at Exhibit 19 and the witness is the
owner of CNG rickshaw number GJ-7-VV-1022. The witness has stated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
that on 5.4.2011, the accused No. 1 and his sister-in-law Ilaben came and
they brought Jayaben and asked him to take them to hospital. He had
taken them to Matar Hospital and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and Ilaben
were with her.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that when he took the rickshaw and went
to the house of the accused No. 1, there were a number of persons from
the street, who had gathered there and immediately she was taken to
hospital. That on the way to the hospital, Jayaben could not speak
anything.
10.5] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6
Bhikhabhai Atmarambhai Solanki at Exhibit 23 and the witness is the
neighbor of the complainant, who has stated that on 5.4.2011, when he
was at his home, he was informed that Jayaben has consumed poison and
he went to along with the complainant to the hospital and they were
informed that while Jayaben was being brought to the hospital, she had
expired enroute to the hospital.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he is a leader of his community and if
a person is in the community wedding, the gifts are given by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
community and no dowry is given or taken for a wedding for a
community wedding.
10.6] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7
Vinubhai Keshavbhai Solanki at Exhibit 24 and the witness is the
nephew of the complainant, who has stated that Jayaben was married to
the accused No. 1 around five years prior to the incident and one day
prior to the incident, Jayaben had come to her parental house and
thereafter she was sent back to her matrimonial home. On 05.04.2011,
Jayaben consumed some poison and he was informed and he along with
his uncle and others had gone to the Matar hospital where Ilaben, the
sister of Jayaben and her husband Bharatbhai were present. They were
not informed about the reason for the quarrel and Jayaben expired
enroute to the hospital.
10.7] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8
Sahdevsinh Bahadursinh Vaghela at Exhibit 25 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail the entire procedure that
was undertaken by him during investigation.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he had recorded the statements of
Ramabai Somabai and Kabhaibhai Somabai but they have not been cited
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
as witnesses in the charge-sheet. In the statements of Ramabai Somabai
Parmar and Kabhaibhai Somabai Parmar, it had emerged that the
deceased was residing separately with her husband and there was no
mental or physical torture from the accused. Jayaben had gone to the
field and consumed poison and thereafter Kanubhai Chandubhai and
Bharatbhai Chandubhai had brought her home. In the statements of
Kanubhai Chandubhai and Bharatbhai Chandubhai, there was no
evidence that Jayaben would speak and he had not recorded the
statements of the neighbours of the matrimonial house of Jayaben.
11] On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution,
the evidence that has come on record is that Jayaben was married with the
accused No. 1 in the community wedding and as per the evidence of
Prosecution Witness No. 6 Bikhabai Atmaram Solanki, who is a leader of
their community, no dowry is given or taken in a community wedding
and the persons of the community give the gifts to the couple. The
incident has occurred on 05.04.2011 and on 04.04.2011, deceased
Jayaben was at her parental home and the accused No. 1 had called her
back home as his tiffin had to be prepared in the morning but she did not
return on that day. Her mother babyben was ill and Jayaben would often
come to help her mother as the doctor had advised her mother not to do
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
any work. Moreover, even though she was married for about five years,
deceased Jayaben did not have any children and in the evidence of
Prosecution Witness No. 2 Prahlad Kadabhai Solanki, the father of the
deceased, Prosecution Witness No. 3, Ilaben Bharatbhai Parmar, the
sister of the deceased and Prosecution Witness No. 4, Arvindbhai
Prahladbhai Solanki, the brother of the deceased, it has come on record
that deceased Jayaben was mentally upset as she did not have children.
Moreover, it has also emerged on record that a boy child was born at the
house of her younger brother-in-law and she was upset about the same. In
the evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 8, Sahdevsinh Bahadursinh
Vaghela, the Investigating Officer, it has come on record that Jayaben had
consumed poison in a field and Kanubhai Chandubhai and Bharatbhai
Chandubhai had brought her to her matrimonial house but both of the
witnesses have not been examined before the learned Trial court. The
complainant Prosecution Witness No. 2 Prahladbhai Kadabhai Solanki
has categorically stated that no demand of dowry was made to him and
the deceased had told his wife Babyben that the accused were demanding
for Rs.25,000/- to bring a motorcycle and his wife had told him the same,
but it is pertinent to note that Babyben, the mother of the deceased had
not been examined before the learned Trial court. Moreover, in the
evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 2 Prahladbhai Solanki, it has also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
come on record that the accused were well off and their financial status
was good and hence he had got Jayaben married to the accused No. 1.
Moreover, one year after the marriage, Jayaben had started living
separately with the accused No. 1 and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were not
residing with the deceased. That Babyben, the mother of the deceased,
was ill and she would often come to her parental home in the morning
and go back in the evening and Prosecution Witness No. 3, Ilaben
Bharatbhai Parman was residing in the same village, but she had children
and she could not come to help her mother. The complainant Prosecution
Witness No. 2 Prahladbhai Solanki has also stated that he had never told
anyone about the demand made by the accused at any point of time and in
the entire evidence of the prosecution, there is nothing on record to prove
that the accused had aided, abetted, instigated or goaded the deceased to
commit suicide and there is no evidence that immediately prior to the
incident, any of the accused had a quarrel or any contact with the
deceased, so that she could have no option but to commit suicide.
12] In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1382/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
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, 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 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 120
of 2011 on 25.05.2012, ,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
