Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mehulkumar Navinchandra Patel on 4 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2200 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MEHULKUMAR NAVINCHANDRA PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RB PATEL(2351) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR SHIRISH R PATEL(5605) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 04/04/2025
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 Sessions Judge,
Court No. 15, Ahmedabad , (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial
Court") in Sessions Case No. 474 of 2006 on 06.07.2009, 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 Sections 3 and 7 of the The Dowry Prohibition
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Dowry Act, for short).
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] Accused No. 1 Mehulkumar Navinchandra Patel was
married to Pratikshaben Pravichandra Patel on 22-04-2002 as per the
customs of their caste and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law
and mother-in-law respectively, the accused No. 4 and 5 are the sisters-
in-law, and the accused No. 6 is the brother-in-law and the husband of
the accused No. 4, of deceased Pratikshaben. The accused kept deceased
Pratikshaben happily for one month after the marriage and thereafter
started physically and mentally torturing her that she did not get any
dowry from her parental home and the torture was to such an extent, that
it could not be borne by deceased Pratikshaben and on 28-05-2003 at
around 02:30 hours, she consumed some poisonous substance and
committed suicide. The complaint was filed by Pravichandra
Tribhuvandas Kachiya Patel, the father of deceased Pratikshaben before
the Vatva Police Station under Sections 306, 498-A and 114 of the IPC
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Act, which was registered at Vatva
Police Station at I-C.R.No. 322 of 2003.
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 the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and as
the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the case was registered Sessios Case No. 474 of 2006.
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. 2 was
framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were
recorded at Exhs. 3 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at
Exh.35, 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
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 APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Shirish Patel for 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. Dhwani Tripathi 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. 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. Shirish Patel appearing for the respondents -
original accused submits that the judgment and order has been passed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
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
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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
(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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
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."
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:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
"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:-
"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)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
"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."
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 Pravichandra Tribhovandas Patel at Exhibit
11 and the witness is the father of the deceased and the complainant, who
has fully supported the contents of the complaint, which is produced at
Exhibit 12. The witness has stated that his daughter would come to his
house and tell him that she was being harassed mentally and physically
and the accused would torture her that she has not brought any dowry
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
from her parental home. In May 2003, his daughter had come to his
house and she was pregnant and she was taken to the Chintan Hospital
for treatment and at that time she told him that the accused were
demanding an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for the baby shower. She went
back to her matrimonial home as the accused No. 1 had come to take her
and on the date of the incident at around 03:00 a.m., his sister residing at
Vejalpur called him and told him that Pratiksha was suffering from
vomiting and diarrhea and was taken to L.G. Hospital. He along with
other family members came to Ahmedabad and his daughter was
admitted in L.G.Hospital and the accused were present at the hospital at
that time. His daughter had expired and her body had turned dark and it
was taken for post-mortem to the Civil Hospital. The cremation rites
were done by the in-laws, and they went back to their house. He had
filed the complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 12 on 9-8-2003.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he came to know of the incident only
when his sister telephoned him that his daughter was admitted in LG
Hospital and her father-in-law and mother-in-law were present at the
hospital. His sons had gone along with him to LG Hospital and the police
were also present and were inquiring into the matter. He does not know
whether his statement was recorded by the Deputy Police Commissioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
on 28-05-03, and in his statement, he had stated that his daughter and the
accused No. 1 used to come to his place often and his daughter had never
told him that she was being harassed by her in-laws. He had also stated
that his daughter was pregnant and she had come to her house and she
was taken to Chintan Hospital and a sonography was also done.
Thereafter on 24-05-2003, the accused No. 1 had come, and they stayed
the night, and thereafter both of them had gone to Ahmedabad and on 25-
05-2003 and his daughter had gone happily with her husband. He had
also stated that when he went, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of his
daughter were present. They told him that on the previous night, the
accused No. 1 had gone for work, and they were sleeping on the terrace,
and at around 1:00 hours, they heard Pratiksha vomiting and came down
and she was immediately rushed to the LG hospital and admitted in the
ICU ward. The accused No. 4 was married to the accused No. 6 and the
accused No. 5 was also married prior to the marriage of his daughter. On
8-06-2003, all the items which were given by him to his daughter were
returned to him by the accused with a list signed by the accused Nos. 1
and 2. His nephew Devendrabhai had decided to give a typed complaint
to the police station and Devendrabhai had taken his signature and had
done all the formalities. Devendrabhai is well-versed with the Courts and
police station, and has good relations with advocates as he is doing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
business of sanitary and building materials. He does not remember when
the application was signed and he was asked to affix his signature and he
had signed on the same. His brother-in-law Arvindbhai is also well-
versed with Courts and when the items were returned by the accused on
07-06-2003, they had demanded money from the accused Nos. 1 and 2
and at that time, they had a quarrel as the accused refused to give them
money.
10.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2
Vimlaben Chimanlal Brahmakshtriya at Exhibit 14 and the witness is the
panch-witness of the inquest panchnama, which is produced at Exhibit
15. The witness has stated that she was known to the deceased as she was
a neighbor of the accused, and she had gone to LG hospital along with
them on the date of the incident. She was called for the inquest
panchnama and had verified whether there were any marks of injury on
the body of the deceased and there were no marks of injury on the body
of the deceased and the inquest panchnama is produced at Exhibit 15.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that she is residing in the third house
from the accused No. 1 for the past 18 years and the sisters of the
accused No. 1 are married and residing in their matrimonial home. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
accused was working in the vegetable market at Jamalpur, and she has
never heard any quarrel from the house of the accused No.1.
10.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3
Nayneshkumar Pravinchandra Kachhiya Patel at Exhibit 16 and the
witness is the brother of the deceased and the son of the complainant,
who supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate of the
accused, the witness has stated that he does not remember whether his
statement was recorded by the Assistatnt Commissioner of Police on 28-
05-2023.
10.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4
Dr. Mustakahmed Gulamrasul Shekh at Exhibit 17 and the witness is the
Medical Officer who has conducted the post-mortem on the body of the
deceased while he was working as a Medical Officer in the Civil
Hospital in Ahmedabad on 28-05-2023. The witness has stated that there
were no marks of injury on the dead body of the deceased and after the
post-mortem, the cause of death was reserved till the report of the viscera
was received from the FSL and after the report was received, the final
cause of death was due to Cardiorespiratory arrest due to propozor
canbamal as poisoning.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
10.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5
Chandrakant Chhanabhai Patel at Exhibit 19 and the witness is the panch
witness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at
Exhibit 20.
10.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6
Ashokkumar Mahendrabhai Muniya at Exhibit 22 and the witness was
working as the Additional Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City on
28-05-2023, when Accident Death No. 29 of 2003 was registered and he
had taken over the investigation from Police Inspector C.J.Singh. He had
recorded the statements of three witnesses and thereafter handed over the
investigation to Police Inspector C.J.Singh.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he had recorded the statements of the
mother, father, and brother of deceased Pratikshaben and in the
statements had not made any allegations against the accused. The death
was reported by the accused No. 2 i.e. the father-in-law of the deceased
and till the investigation was with him, there was no declaration of any
comprehensive offence.
10.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7
Gavarkhan Mirkhan Bloach at Exhibit 23 and the witness has stated that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
he was working as a PSI in Vatva Police Station and had received a
Vardhi from ASI Rajubhai Mohanbhai from LG Hospital. He had gone to
LG Hospital, and immediately thereafter, another vardhi was received
that Pratikshaben had expired. He had sent a Yadi to the Executive
Magistrate for preparing the inquest and had recorded the statement of
Navinchandra Bhikhabhai Patel and had forwarded the papers to Police
Inspector C.J.Singh for further investigation.
10.7 Prosecution Witness No. 8 Chandrajeet Javaharsing
examined at Exhibit 29 is the Investigating Officer, who has stated that
on 28-05-2003, Vatva Police Station, Accident Death No. 29 of 2003 was
registered, and it was being investigated by Assistant Commissioner of
Police "J" Division, Ahmedabad City. He had taken over the
investigation and has narrated the entire procedure that was undertaken
by him.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that when the marital life of the deceased
was less than seven years, the case was investigated by an officer of the
level of an Assistant Commissioner of Police and on the date of the
incident, the matter was investigated by Assistant Commissioner of
Police Shree Muniya. A special report was also sent and when he had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
received the papers, the statements of Navinchandra Tribhovandas Patel,
his wife Shardaben Pravichandra and son Naineshkumar Navinchandra
were recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and he had read
the statements and from the statements, there was no evidence that the
deceased had any mental or physical harassment in her matrimonial
home. He had showed the statements to the complainant, his wife and
son, and they had stated that they were true and correct. During
investigation, it was also found that the accused Nos. 4 and 5 were
married prior to the marriage of the deceased and they were residing in
their matrimonial home and the complainant did not give any
explanation regarding the delay in filing of the complaint.
11. On minute examination of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the evidence that has emerged on record is that the deceased
was married to the accused No.1 on 22-04-2002 and the unfortunate
incident has occurred on 28-05-2003. On the date of the incident, the
accused No. 1 was not at home as he had gone for work, and
immediately, deceased Pratikshaben was rushed to L.G.Hospital and was
admitted in the ICU ward by the accused Nos. 2 and 3. She expired
during treatment and Accident Death No. 29 of 2023 under Section 174
of the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered, which was duly
inquired into. The panchnama of the place of offence was drawn on 28-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
05-2003 and during the investigation of the Accident Death No. 29 of
2003, the statements of the complainant, Navinchandra Tribhuvandas
Patel, Shardaben Navinchandra Patel and Naineshkumar Pravichandra
Kachia Patel, the father, mother and brother, respectively of the deceased
were recorded, wherein they did not make any allegations about any ill-
treatment by the accused. In the evidence, it has also emerged that
thereafter, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 gave all the items of deceased
Pratikshaben in a list signed by them to the complainant Navinchandra
Tribhuvandas Patel on 8-06-2003 and on that date, the complainant and
his son demanded for some money from the accused but the accused
refused to give the same. That in the statements recorded by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, no allegations of ill-treatment by any of the
accused were made and thereafter a typed complaint was given in the
Police Station on 11-07-2003. In the evidence of the complainant, it has
also come on record that Devendrabhai - the nephew of the complainant -
Navinchandra Tribhuvandas Patel was well-versed with the Courts and
Police Station and had good relations with advocates, asked him to affix
his signature on a typed document and he had affixed his signature and
the same was given in the police station. Thereafter, the complaint was
filed on 09-08-2003. In the entire evidence, there is no explanation
regarding the delay in filing of the complaint and it has also emerged that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
all the family members had gone for the cremation of Pratikshaben,
which had taken place at her matrimonial home. That, no allegations of
any sort were made against the accused and it appears that immediately
after the incident, Pratikshaben was taken to the L.G.Hospital and she
was admitted for treatment but the prosecution has not produced the
treatment papers on record. The doctor, who has treated the deceased at
L.G.Hospital has also not been examined, and in the evidence of the
Investigating Officer, it is clearly come on record that during the inquiry
of Accident Death No. 29 of 2003, there were no allegations of any
harassment to the deceased Pratikshaben by any of the accused.
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2200/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
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, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.
474 of 2006 on 06.07.2009 ,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
