Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Satyakumar Babulal on 8 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2175 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PATEL SATYAKUMAR BABULAL & ORS.
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR ABHAYKUMAR P SHAH(3093) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 08/04/2025
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 Additional
Sessions Judge, Mahesana (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial
Court") in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2008 on 18.06.2008, 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
1860 (IPC) as well as Sections 3 and 7 of the The Dowry Prohibition
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] The accused No. 1 was married to Mamata, the daughter of
the complainant Jayantibhai Ambalal Patel in the year 1999 and the
accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law
respectively of deceased Mamata. As per the complaint filed by the
complainant Jayantibhai Ambalal Patel on 04-01-2008, after marriage the
accused kept his daughter Mamata well but after some time, they started
demanding money from her and would physically and mentally harass
her and would have a doubt on the character of his daughter. The
physical and mental harassment was to such an extent that his daughter
Mamata was so fed up with the harassment. That on 03-01-2008, she
sprinkled kerosene on herself and her minor son Rushi anytime before
12:00 noon and committed suicide. The complaint was filed by the
complainant Jayantibhai Ambalal Patel on 4-1-2008 before the Mahesana
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
City Police Station, which was registered at I-C.R.No. 3 of 2008 under
Sections 306, 498-A and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the
Dowry Act.
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 Judicial Magistrte, Mahesna and as
the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Mahesana as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the case was registered Sessios Case No. 62 of 2008.
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. 8 was
framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were
recorded at Exhs. 9 to 11, 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 evidences and twenty
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
three documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the
accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the
closing pursis at Exh.48, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
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 APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State
and learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda 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. 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. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda 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.
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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
(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
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-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
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:-
"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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
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."
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. Nikunjbhai Bhikhabhai Suthar at Exhibit
13 and the witness was working as a Pathologist in the B.J.Medical
College, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The witness has produced the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
histopathological report at Exhibit 14 and had examined the specimens,
pieces of spleen, liver, lungs, kidney, etc. of deceased Mamataben and
his son Rushi, which were received from Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad.
During the cross examination of the advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that the specimens were sent by the Medical Officer
conducting the postmortem on the dead bodies as he had found some
changes in the organs and hence they were sent for histopathological
examination.
10.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2
Jayantibhai Amabalal Patel at Exhibit 16 and the witness is the
complainant, who has deposed on oath all the contents of the complaint,
which is produced at Exhibit 34. The witness has stated that his daughter
was kept very well by the accused and as she was educated and beautiful
and the accused No. 1 would have a doubt on her. His daughter had two
children and the accused would demand an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-
from his daughter Mamata and she had telephoned him that they were
demanding Rs.2,00,000/-. He and his wife had gone to his daughter's
matrimonial home and all the accused were present and they had
demanded for the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- but as he did not have the
financial capacity he told them that he would give the amount later. As
he did not give the amount, they started harassing his daughter and three
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
months prior to the incident the accused No. 2 had come to his shop and
inquired about Rs.2,00,000/- but he told him that he would give the
amount in the year 2008. On 03.01.2008, he was informed on his mobile
phone that his daughter was ill and he took his scooter and went home
and saw a number of members had gathered there and he saw that his
daughter and his grandson were burned and he filed the complaint.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that his daughter Mamata had done her
education in B.Com and M.Com after she was married and residing in
her matrimonial house and his son-in-law was having a shop in the name
and style of Satyam Trading Company and was doing the business of
cement. He knew the accused No. 2 well as they both were from the
same village at Mahesana and hence he had got his daughter married to
the accused. His sister Neeruben is residing in the same society as his
daughter and he had filed a complaint after a delay of 32 hours. After the
postmortem, the dead body of his daughter Mamata was handed over to
her in-laws and he did not attend the final cremation rites of his daughter.
He went home and slept and on the next day, a number of persons had
come to meet him and extended their condolences to him. He does not
remember when he had gone to his daughter's house and on one
occasion, his daughter had come to his house being upset with her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
matrimonial home and she had stayed for two hours. He had called his
brothers Natubhai and Pintubhai to his house and he had not informed
any members of his community about the accident. He did not inform the
police or any court about the harassment to his daughter and for the first
time, on 04-01-2008, he had stated about the harassment to his daughter.
When his grandson Rushi was born, the accused had arranged for a Raas
Garba programme and he had gone along with his family and
photographs were taken. His grand-daughter Drashti is studying in Sabri
school and the fees are being paid by the accused.
10.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3
Niruben Arvindkumar Patel at Exhibit 17 and the witness is the sister of
the complainant and aunty of the deceased Mamata and residing in the
same society as the deceased. The witness has stated that, on the date of
the incident, she was on her duty between 8 to 11 and had come home at
11:00 am and at around 11.30 am the accused No. 3 had come to her
house asking her if the key of the house was with her but as she did not
have it, the accused No. 3 left. At around 12.30 pm, her nephew Chirag
telephoned her to ask her to go and check what had occurred at the house
of Mamata. When she went there, she was informed that Mamata and her
son Rushi were burned amd she was in a state of shock.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that she was working as a staff nurse in
the Civil Hospital and when the police had reached Mamata's house, she
was present. The witness has stated that she resided in the same society
as Mamata from 2000 to 2008.
10.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4
Bhavinbhai Jayantibhai Patel at Exhibit 19 and the witness is the brother
of the deceased Mamataben, who has supported the case of the
prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the accused were financially very
well off and he does not know whether his sister Mamataben had a pan
card or an account in Mahesana Nagarik Sahkari Bank. He does not
know whether Mamataben had any deposits in Sahara India Finance
Corporation and whether she was given an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-by
the accused and his family to invest in shares.
10.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5
Shrikant Jagdevrao Jadhav at Exhibit 20 and the witness is the
panchwitness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which was
produced at Exhibit 21. The witness has fully supported the case of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
prosecution and during the cross examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness has stated that he lives in the same village as the
accused and is known to the deceased Mamataben also. The relationship
of Mamataben with her in-laws was very good and he had never seen her
quarrelling with the accused. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 would treat
Mamataben as their daughter and the accused No. 1 also kept the
deceased well and they would go out together. That a huge Ras Garba
Programme was kept at the birth of son Rushi and all the parental
members of the family of deceased Mamata had remained present.
10.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6
Dr. Prakashbhai Laxmanbhai Shah at Exhibit 24 and the witness is the
Medical Officer, who was working at the Civil Hospital in Mahesna and
had conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Mamataben
and minor Rushi. The witness has produced the postmortem note of
deceased Mamataben at Exhibit 25 and deceased Rushi at Exhibit 26.
The witness has stated that there were extensive burns on the whole body
and the skin subcutaneous tissues were charred but no blisters were seen.
The whole back was burnt with superficial and deep burns except gluteal
regions and there was exfoliation of skin on right dorsal surface of foot
and inner surface of ankle joint and other surfaces had black color burns.
There were no burns in the soles and both legs, clothes and skin were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
burnt. There was a single superficial red color roundish shaped 6 mm in
diameter bruise raised above surface of the skin on dorsal surface
between proximal and distal interphalangeal joints on the right index
finger, a single superficial red color less roundish 3 mm in diameter
shaped bruise slightly raised above surface of skin on dorsal surface of
proximal interphalangeal joint on the right finger and a single superficial
4 mm diameter red color less roundish shaped bruise slightly raised
above surface of skin on proximal interphalangeal joint on the right little
finger. The bruises on the fingers on the right index finger, right ring
finger and right little finger were antemortem in nature and the cause of
death was kept pending for the reports of viscera from FSL and
histopathology laboratory were received. After the receipt of the reports,
the cause of death was given as due to severe extensive burns.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that at the time of the postmortem, there
were gold and silver ornaments on the dead body of the deceased and
both the dead bodies were burnt with kerosene. The injuries mentioned
in column No. 17 were simple injuries, which were only on the right
hand of the deceased, which could be sustained by a fall. The percentage
of burns is not mentioned in the postmortem note.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
10.6 Prosecution Witness No. 7 Raimalbhai Mafabhai Desai
examined at Exhibit 31 is the PSO, Mahesana City Police Station, who
had registered the complaint of the accused..
10.7 Prosecution Witness No. 8 Rajendrakumar Bhanuprasad
Yagnik examined at Exhibit 33 is the Investigating Officer, who has
investigated the offence and has narrated in detail all the procedure
undertaken by him during investigation. The witness has stated that
Accident Death No. 1 of 2008 was registered and on the basis of the
report, an offence under Section 302 of the IPC was registered at I-C.R.
No. 2 of 2008.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the complaint was filed by the
complainant Jayantilal Ambalal Patel thirty two hours after the accident
and the inquiry of Accident Death No. 1 of 2008 was undertaken on the
basis of the application of the complaint. The witness has stated that
when he had gone to the town of the accused on 03.01.2008, the
complainant and all the family members were present and when the dead
bodies were sent to Mahesana Civil Hospital for postmortem, the
complainant and all the family members were present. The dead bodies
were handed over to the accused on the say of the complainant for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
cremation and on 03.01.2008, the statements of the neighbours of
Samarpan Society were recorded. All the neighbours had cooperated
with the investigation and statements of Meenaben Nayak, Kalpanaben
Shrikant, Jagdevrao Jadhav were recorded. The complainant in his
further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. did not say
that the amount was demanded and that he would pay the amount to the
accused.
10.8 Prosecution Witness No. 9 Shaktisinh Ghanshyamsinh Parmar
examined at Exhibit 47 is the Police Inspector, who had filed the charge
against the accused.
11. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it has come on record that the incident has occurred on
0.01.2008 between 10.30 to 11.45 hours and the complaint has been filed
on 4.1.2008 at 21.15 hours. Accident Death No. 1 of 2008 was registered
and the statements of the neighbours were recorded but none of those
independent witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial
Court. The main reason as stated by the complainant in the complaint, is
that, the accused had demanded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from
deceased Mamataben and the complainant was unable to pay the same
and hence she was physically and mentally harassed by the accused, but
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
there is no iota of evidence that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was
demanded by the accused. In the deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 4
Bhavinbhai Jayantibhai Patel, the brother of the deceased, it has come on
record that the accused were financially well off and there is evidence on
record that the deceased had her own account and she had completed her
graduation and post-graduation after her marriage while she was in her
matrimonial home. In the further statement under Section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused have produced the copies of the
account No. 02539 of the deceased Mamataben Satyamkumar with the
Mahesana Nagarik Sahkari Bank Limited and as per the same, on
31.03.2008, there was an amount of Rs. 01,04,599/- as closing balance in
her account. The other documents including copies of the Income Tax
Returns of the accused have also been produced on record. As per the
case of the prosecution, the deceased had committed suicide with a small
child as the accused No. 1 had doubts on the character of the deceased but
in the entire evidence, there are no specific incidents or no evidence to
that effect produced on record. There is no evidence that there was any
physical or mental harassment of any sort by the accused at any point of
time before the FIR was filed and Prosecution Witness No. 5 Shrikant
Jagdevrao Jadhav, who is the panch witness of the panchnam of the place
of offence and a neighbour of the deceased has, in the cross examination,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
admitted that he had never seen the deceased quarrelling with the
accused. That the accused Nos. 2 and 3 would treat the deceased
Mamataben as their daughter and there is nothing on record to show that
immediately prior to the incident, there was any quarrel or any dispute
with the accused. Admittedly the deceased Mamataben and the accused
No. 1 were married for more than nine years and during the entire period
of nine years, as per the complaint, it was only on one occasion that she
had come to her parental house for two hours and thereafter she was
taken back to her matrimonial home by Pintubhai but the said Pintubhai
has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, if the
deposition of the complainant is perused, it appears that after the incident,
the complainant did not go for the funeral rites of his daughter, but went
home and went to sleep and in the statement of the complainant recorded
in Accidental Death No. 1 of 2008, no allegations of any ill treatment
were made or that the accused had any doubt on his daughter and she had
come to her parental home. Admittedly Prosecution Witness No.3,
Neeruben Arvindkumar Patel was residing in the same society, was a
neighbour of the deceased Mamataben, but she too did not know anything
about the incident and there are no specific allegations made about the
mental and physical harassment to the deceased. There is nothing on
record to suggest that any time prior to the incident, the accused had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
aided, abetted, instigated or goaded the deceased to commit suicide and at
the time of the unfortunate incident, the accused were present at home. In
fact, in the evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 3 Neeruben
Arvindkumar Patel, it has emerged that, at the time of the incident, the
deceased was alone and the accused No. 3 had come to her house to
inquire whether the key of the house was with her.
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2175/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025
undefined
13. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana in Sessions Case No. 62 of
2008 on 18.06.2008, 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
