Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Devsinh Ranmalbhai Gagalia on 15 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 772 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DEVSINH RANMALBHAI GAGALIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PM LAKHANI(1326) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MRS R P LAKHANI(3811) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 15/04/2025
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 learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the
learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2006 on 08.08.2007,
whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 3
for the offence for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and
114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as
they stood in the rank and file in the original case for the sake of
convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as
under:
2.1] The accused No. 1 was married to Nathiben @ Jiguben Punjabhai
Suva, the daughter of complainant Kariben Punjabhai Suva and the
accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law
respectively of deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben Punjabhai Suva. The
accused No. 3 would often tell the deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben that she
was the daughter of beggars and her parents had not given her anything
and would mentally and physically harass her. The accused No. 3 had
once thrown hot vegetables on the leg of her daughter Nathiben @
Jiguben and all the accused would mentally and physically harass
deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben and the harassment was to such an extent
that on 29-09-2006 at around 20:15 hours, Nathiben @ Jiguben sprinkled
kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze and committed suicide. The
complaint was filed by Kariben wife of Punjabhai Dadubhai Suva, the
mother of deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben before the Dy.S.P, Jamnagar
City on 39-2006 which was registered at Jamnagar "A" Division Police
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
Station I-C.R.No.247 of 2006 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
completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the
accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar and as
the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Jamnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the case was registered Sessios Case No. 129 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.7 was
framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were
recorded at Exhs. 8 to 10, 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 eleven oral evidences and twelve
documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at
Exh.50, 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/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
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 Mr. P.M.Lakhani 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. 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. That the complainant has supported the case
of the prosecution, which is corroborated by the deposition of the medical
officer and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned
trial Court. The 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr. P.M.Lakhani appearing for the respondents-
original accused submits that the judgments and orders have 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;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
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/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
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
Thirdly - intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
of that thing.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
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/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
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 Hiren Jayantilal Variya at Exhibit 14 and
Prosecution Witness No. 3 Haji Nurmahamad Jammiyana at Exhibit 18.
Both the witnesses are the panch - witnesses of the panchnama of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
place of offence, which is produced at Exhibit 41. Both the witnesses
have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared
hostile and have been crossexamined at length by the learned APP but
nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
10.1] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2
Pruthvirajsinh Chandrasinh Vaghela at Exhibit 15 and the witness was
the Medical Officer at G.G. Hospital Jamnagar, when the body of
deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben was brought for postmortem. The witness
has stated that he along with panel doctor, Dr. Rahul Mehta conducted
the postmortem on 30.09.2006 between 10.40 am to 11.30 am on the
dead body of Nathiben @ Jiguben and as per Column No. 17 almost
100% dermo epidural burns were seen all over the body and there was
peeling of epidermis seen with reddening and blackening effect. Strong
kerosene like smell was perceived from the body and singeing effect was
at some places and the heart ruptures were seen. All the injuries were
antemortem and fresh burns and soot particles were seen in the trachea
and the lungs were congested. In their opinion, the probable cause of
death was due to burns and the postmortem note is produced at Exhibit
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
accused, the witness has stated that the deceased had expired due to the
burn injuries but he could not say as to whether they were homicidal,
accidental or suicidal. The dead body that was brought for postmortem
did not have any bandages on the body.
10.2] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4
Dharmendra Shivubhai Gadhavi at Exhibit 19 and Prosecution Witness
No. 5 Jayaben Ramsibhai at Exhibit 20. Both the panch witnesses are the
panch witnesses of the inquest panchnama which is produced at Exhibit
47 and both the panch witnesses have denied that they were the panch
witnesses of any inquest panchnama. The witnesses have not supported
the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and have been
cross-examined at length by the learned APP, but nothing to support the
case of the prosecution as common record in their evidence.
10.3] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6
Kariben wife of Punjabhai at Exhibit 29 and the witness is the
complainant and mother of the deceased who has stated that the deceased
Nathiben was married about two and a half years prior to the incident
and she had a one and a half year old daughter. The witness has
supported the contents of the complaint and has stated that the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
used to harass her and would tell her that she was the daughter of a
beggar and her daughter was sent back to her parental home where she
stayed forever about 10 to 15 days. That her husband and mother-in-law
came and had taken her back to her matrimonial home and after five
days, the incident had occurred. She had gone to the hospital and she had
thereafter filed the complaint.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that she had not mentioned in her
complaint that her daughter had told her that it would be difficult for her
to live and that the accused No. 1 had not gone for the cremation rites of
her daughter. Before the marriage of her daughter Nathiben, she knew
that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were labour workers for brass parts and at
the time of the marriage also, they were doing labour work. The gap
between the engagement and the marriage of her daughter was about
three years and during this time they would visit each other's homes
frequently but the accused never wanted to break off the engagement
during this period. The marriage of her daughter with the accused No. 1
was through one Mandalbhai Kalubhai of her village, who was known to
both the parties and after her daughter went to her matrimonial home, she
was residing separately in Gokulnagar with her husband. She had happily
sent her daughter as they had happily come to take her and there was no
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
quarrel at the time when her daughter had gone to her matrimonial home.
The young daughter of her daughter Nathiben was residing with the
accused and regarding the incident of throwing hot vegetable on the leg
of her daughter, no treatment was taken by Nathiben at that time.
10.4] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7
Keshurbhai Hamirbhai at Exhibit 31 and the witness is the maternal
uncle of deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben, who has supported the case of
the prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he had gone to the house of Nathiben
on two to three occasions and earlier Nathiben and the accused No. 1 had
gone to reside separately and the incident had taken place in the house,
where the deceased and the accused No. 1 were residing separately. The
accused Nos. 2 and 3 were residing in a house situated in Panakhan area
and he does not know how Nathiben was burnt.
10.5] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8
Bhikhabhai Jetabhai Karangiya at Exhibit 32 and the witness is the
maternal uncle of deceased Nathiben, who has supported the case of the
prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
accused, the witness has stated that he knew about the incident only
because his sister had told him the details and prior to the incident
Nathiben and the accused No. 1 were residing separately.
10.6] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9
Rajendrasinh Umedsinh Jadeja at Exhibit 35 and the witness is the PSO,
Jamnagar City "A" Division Police Station, who has registered the
complaint of the complainant
10.7] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 10
Kanjibhai Virji Makwana at Exhibit 39 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer, who has narrated the entire procedure undertaken
by him during investigation.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that there was a primus stove at the place
of incident and kerosene smell was coming from the place and during
investigation he had recorded the statements of the neighbours. The
deceased and the accused No. 1 were residing separately at the place of
incident.
10.8] Prosecution Witness No. 11 Amrutbhai Lallubhai Desai
examined at Exhibit 48 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who
has recorded the complaint of the complainant and had thereafter sent the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
complaint for registering the same towards Jamnagar City "A" Division
Police Station.
11. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution,
the facts that have come on record are that the deceased and the accused
No. 1 were residing separately away from the accused Nos. 2 and 3 and if
the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exhibit 41 is perused,
the incidence has occurred in the resident of the deceased, which was
given on rent to the accused No. 1 and the deceased. At the place of
incident along with the other household items, there was a wick primus
stove with very less kerosene and near the same was a small jar with a
little bit of kerosene and there was kerosene all around. There was a
vessel for mixing dough and other other cooking equipments and
kerosene was lying all around. The panchnama of the place of offence
was drawn on 30.09.2006 between 7.15 to 7.45 hours and the inquest
panchnama produced at Exhibit 47 was drawn on 29.09.2006 between
21.45 hours to 22.15 hours. The complaint has been filed by the
complainant Kariben W/o Punjabhai Dadubhai Sua on 30.09.2006 at
20.15 hours and the spot inspection by the Scientific Officer, Forensic
Science Laboratory, Porbandar was undertaken on 29.09.2006 between
15.45 hours to 16.50 hours. If the report of the Scientific Officer,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
Forensic Science Laboratory, Porbandar, which is produced at Exhibit 42
is perused, the report states that the room was a 10 feet X 10 feet room
with household articles and on the eastern side was a bed and a cupboard
and a kitchen stand to place vessels. On the southern side was the kitchen
area having items for kitchen for cooking and the wick stove had about
500 ml of kerosene and there was another jar with 100 ml kerosene in it.
The cover of the stove and the kerosene jar were both opened and and
there were two burnt matchsticks and a half burnt matchbox at that place.
Kerosene smell was coming from the place and at the time of drawing of
the report, the roof was blackened. The prosecution has examined
Prosecution Witness No.6 Kariben W/o Punjabhai, who is the mother of
the deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben and the complainant in the matter but
she has not fully supported the case of the prosecution and in her
evidence, a number of contradictions have come on record. Prosecution
Witness No. 7 Keshurbbhai Hamirbhai and Prosecution Witness No. 8
Bhikhabbhai Jethabhai Karangia both are the maternal uncles of deceased
Nathiben @ Jiguben and they both have admitted that they do not have
any personal knowledge about the matrimonial life of deceased Nathiben
@ Jiguben. In the entire evidence of the prosecution, the final report of
FSL, as to whether the inflammable items found at the place of incident
were kerosene or not, has not come under on record and the report of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
Scientific Officer, FSL Porbandar produced at Exhibit 42, suggests that
the deceased was cooking and at the place of incident, the cover of the
tank of kerosene of the primus stove and the cover of the jar of kerosene
were both open, which suggests that the incident was an accidental one,
which had occurred while the deceased was cooking an trying to refill the
wick premus stove with kerosene from the jar. There is no iota of
evidence that the deceased was subjected to any harassment by the
accused, and it has come on record that the deceased and the accused No.
1 were residing separately from the accused Nos. 2 and 3. There is no iota
of evidence that any incident had occurred immediately prior to the
unfortunate incident, and if the entire evidence is minutely produced,
there are absolutely no allegations against the accused No. 2. Moreover,
there is no iota of evidence that any of the accused were present at home
at the time of the incident, and the learned Trial Court has discussed all
these aspects in the judgment, and as there is no evidence of any aiding,
abetting, goading or inciting the deceased to commit suicide, the learned
Tial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in the impugned judgment
in order of acquittal.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/772/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
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.
13. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Jamnagar in
Sessions Case No. 129 of 2006 on 08.08.2007, 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
