Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rakeshbhai Dulabhai Baraiya on 24 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 988 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
===============================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
===============================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAKESHBHAI DULABHAI BARAIYA & ORS.
===============================================================
Appearance:
MS.JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
MR RAJESH R DEWAL(1024) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3
MR RAXIT J DHOLAKIA(3709) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 24/04/2025
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 Sessions Judge,
Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Sessions Case No. 189 of 2005 on 22.11.2007, whereby, the learned
Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
under Sections 452, 306, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused"
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] On 30.05.2005, the complainant, Ashwinbhai Balabhai
Solanki and his younger brother Ravi were at home and his parents and
elder brother Raju and younger sister Poonam had gone out. At around
12.30 hours, the accused came armed with a stick, which was in the
hands of the accused No. 1 and came into their house and asked them
where their brother Raju was. The accused threatened them and told
them to vacate the house and go away or they would kill them and as the
complainant Ashwinbhai Balabhai Solanki saw them he took a can of
kerosene which was lying in his house and sprinkled it on his body and
set himself ablaze with a matchbox, which was in his house. As he
started burning and shouting, all the four accused ran away and his
neighbour Kanabhai Govindbhai came and put a jute sack on him and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
put out the fire. That he jumped into the water tank which was at his
house and he was grvievously burnt on his chest, stomach, back and his
hands and thereafter his brother Ravi and neighbor Kanabhai Govindbhai
put him in a rickshaw and brought him to the Government Hospital
Bhavnagar, where, he filed the complaint which was registered at
Bhavnagar City "D" Division Police Station I-C.R.No. 93 of 2005 under
Sections 452, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the
Bombay Police Act. The complainant Ashwinbhai Balabhai Solanki
expired during treatment and Section 306 was added in the FIR.
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, Bhavnagar and as
the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Bhavnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the case was registered Sessions Case No. 189 of 2007.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
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 and 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 ten oral evidences and twenty
two documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused
and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing
pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused
denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused
to step 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and
the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination,
nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case
has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondent and the
judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any
basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the
respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State
and learned advocate Mr. Raxit J. Dholakiya for the respondents. 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. That the complainant has supported the case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
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.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Dholakiya 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be
interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial
court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and
plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely
because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear
in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt.
Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing
with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied)
From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following
general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing
with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and
reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate
Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons',
'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted
conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal.
Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language'
to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with
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..
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in
acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal.
The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the
learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not
proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence
in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re
appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appre-
ciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view,
there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
9. As the appeal pertains to a case under Section 306 of the
IPC, it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs The State of Madhya
Pradhesh 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing
of that thing; or
Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
of that thing."
As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the
ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the
commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who
Firstly - instigates any person to do that thing or Secondly - engages
with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or
Thirdly - intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
of that thing.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp
(3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die'
and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:-
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the
heat of the moment between quarreling people. Nothing serious is
expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the
requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be
carried out in all events. ..."
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8
SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under
Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107
IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the
suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or
to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for
attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1
SCC 707, this Court held as under:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is
not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC
there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said
offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of
suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by
doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore,
the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must
be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be
convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar
vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as
under:-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined
different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as
under: (SCC p. 629)
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage
to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not
necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive
of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is
not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a
continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in
which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no
evidence and material available on record where-from an inference of
the appellant accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema
(the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
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 Keshubhai Gelabhai Solanki at Exh.12 and the
witness was working as the City Mamlatdar, Bhavnagar on 30.05.2005
and he had recorded the dying declaration of Ashwinbhai Balabhai
resident of Phulsar. The witness has stated that he had received the yadi
for recording the dying declaration and he had recorded the dying
declaration, which is produced at Exh.14.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he has not mentioned the time, when
he had received the yadi , in the yadi , which is produced at Exh.13 and
he has not recorded at any place that he had left his office to register the
dying declaration. He did not know Ashwinbhai Balabhai from earlier
and he had gone to meet the doctor when he reached the hospital. Sir T
Hospital is a huge hospital and in the yadi , it was not mentioned in what
ward was Ashwinbhai admitted. The OPD and Burns Ward are different
and he has not taken the certificate of the doctor who was posted in the
Burns Ward. He did not inquire from the doctor about the time that the
treatment was going on and in his presence the doctor did not measure
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
the blood pressure or examine the patient with a stethoscope. The
certificate at Ex.17 has to be filled up by the doctor but he has filled up
the same and in the dying declaration, the bed number is not mentioned.
There is no mention about the mental status of the person, whose dying
declaration, was recorded and he did not ask any questions to verify
about the consciousness of the person whose dying declaration he was
recording. The doctor has not mentioned the time, when he had
examined the patient and the dying declaration does not mention that the
doctor was present while the dying declaration was being recorded. The
victim did not state the father's name of accused Harshad Solanki and
Rakesh Bariya and did not mention the area, in which, they were residing
and both the names were incomplete names. He did not try to get the
complete names and the name of Phulia is mentioned but he did not
make make efforts to find out the full name of the person. In the police
yadi , it was mentioned that Gavuben had brought him for treatment and
in the dying declaration, he was stated that Kanabhai had brought him for
treatment. There is a gap between the place where the dying declaration
has concluded and the thumb impression and the hand of the victim was
burnt but he had dipped the thumb on the stamp pad and had taken the
thumb impression of the victim.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
10.1] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.2
Ramanbhai Kachrabhai Parmar at Exh.24 and the witness was working as
a Scientific Officer in the Mobile Investigation van on 31-05-2005 when
he had received a intimation from Bhavnagar "D" Division Police Station
to check the place of incident. He had gone and examined the place and
had filed the report which is produced at Exh.25. At the place of incident,
there was the smell of kerosene and burnt and half-burnt pieces of cloth
and there was an empty 5-litre jar of kerosene from which had the smell
of kerosene. The report is produced at Exh 25.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that, no matchbox was found at the place
of incident and he did not inform the investigating officer to take sample
of the water from the tank, which was in the house. That no jute sack was
found at the place of incident and he did not verify whether there was any
smell of kerosene in the tank.
10.2] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3
Ravibhai Balabhai Solanki and the witness is the younger brother of the
deceased, who was present at the time of the incident. The witness has
stated that as his brother was burning, he jumped the wall and ran away
and when he returned, his neighbour Kanabai had put out the fire on his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
brother, and thereafter he and Kanabai brought his brother in a rickshaw
to the hospital. They had taken him to the Bajrangdas Bapa hospital and
during the cross-examination, the witness has stated that Kanabai was
residing in front of his house and was his neighbour and he was presently
in jail as he was convicted in a nurder case. That his brother Rajubhai was
a externee and thirty to forty cases were recorded against him. That his
neighbours had made representations against his brother before the
Collector and his father was involved in a narcotics case. There are other
residential houses near his house and the description of Don is not written
in the complaint. The description of Phulia is also not written and there
may be other persons by the name of Rakesh Bariya and Harshad
Solanki. That he did not state as to who had given the threat to kill.
10.3] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4,
Gauriben Balabhai Solanki at Exh.29 and the witness is the mother of the
deceased, who has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has admitted that a number of cases were filed
against her son Raju including cases of assault, dacoity and prohibition
and PASA proceedings were also filed against him. At present, her son
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
Raju was at Vadodara as he was a externee and her son Ashwin was fully
burnt.
10.4] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5
Rajeshbhai Balabhai Solanki at Exh.30 and the witness is the elder
brother of the deceased, who has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has admitted that many criminal cases are filed
against him.
10.5] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6
Balabhai Laxmanbhai Solanki at Exh.31 and the witness is the father of
the deceased, who has stated that on the date of the incident, he had gone
to Jamnagar and was not present at home. The witness has not supported
the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been
cross-examined at length by the learned Additional Public Prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has admitted that his elder son Raju was twice a
externee and PASA proceedings were also initiated against him. There
were cases of theft, assault, liquor and dacoity and in all thirty to thirty
five cases were filed against his son Raju. Prior to the demise of his son
Ashwin, a case under the narcotics act was registered against him and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
there were also cases of assault against him but he was never arrested in
any offence of theft or dacoity.
10.6] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.7,
Dineshbhai Narendrabhai Sisodia at Exh.33 and the witness was working
as a Medical Officer in the Sir T Hospital at Bhavnagar. The witness has
stated that the post-mortem on the dead of Ashwinbhai Balabhai Solanki
was done by him and the post-mortem note is produced at Exh.34. The
witness has stated that as per the column No. 17, the chest and upper
limbs were wrapped with hospital bandages and on removing the bandage
burnt areas were seen. There were burns over the chest, dorsum and upper
limbs and 35% to 40% deep burns were found. No visible fractures were
found and the injuries in column No. 17 were antemortem. The cause of
death was septicemic shock due to burns.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that prior to the post-mortem, the
deceased was given treatment and when a person sustains burn injuries,
the water content of the body goes down and important organs of the
body stop functioning as the organs receive less blood. Both the hands of
the deceased from the tips of the fingers of both the hands till the
shoulders including the thumbs were burnt.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
10.7] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.8,
Jashubha Jamsi Chudasma at Exh.39 and the witness has stated that he
was working as the PSO in Bhavnagar "D" Division Police Station when
he had received information from the Medical Officer of Shri Bajrangdas
Bapa Arogya Dham that Ashwinbhai Balabhai Solanki aged about 18
years had attempted suicide by sprinkling kerosene on his body and he
was burnt. Janva Jog entry No. 174 of 2005 was registered and it was sent
towards Head Constable Shri. N.N.Joshi for inquiry. P.S.I., Shri
N.N.Joshi went to the Sir T Hospital and recorded the complaint of the
victim and the complaint was registered.
10.8] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9,
Nitinkumar Nargadashankar Joshi at Exh.45 and the witness was working
as Head Constable at the Bhavnagar "D" Division Police Station and he
has inquired into Janva Jog Entry No. 174 of 2005.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he did not know, who was
Ashwinbhai Balabhai when he went to Sir T Hospital and he did not
inquire about the Medical Officer, who was treating Ashwinbhai
Balabhai. That he did not take the opinion of any Medical Officer about
the mental status and consciousness of Ashwinbhai and the handwritings
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
in the complaint produced at Exh.46 are of his writer constable. The
thumb impression of the complainant is not identified in the complaint
and no clarification about the person named Don was taken from
Ashwinbhai and similarly, no clarification about the person named Fulyo
was taken from the complainant. Moreover, there was no clarification
about the area in which Harshad resides.
10.9] The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 10
Mohanbhai Ranabhai Bariya at Exh.48 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken
by him during investigation.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that all the accused were released on
anticipatory bail and he did not investigate as to whether the accused No.
3 Vipul was at Surat at the time of the incident. No Test Identification
Parade was conducted during investigation and PASA proceedings were
initiated three to four times against Rajubhai, the brother of the deceased.
11] On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the incident has occurred on 30.05.2005 at the house of the
complainant deceased and the deceased has thereafter expired on
02.06.2005. Immediately after the incident, the deceased was brought to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
Shri Bajrangdas Bapa Arogya Dham, Panwadi, Bhavnagar for treatment
but no treatment papers have come on record during trial. The treating
doctor has also not been examined by the prosecution and hence what
was stated in the history by the victim has not come on record. As per the
evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 7 Dineshbhai Narendrabhai,
Sisodia, the Medical Officer who has conducted the post-mortem on the
dead body of deceased Ashwinbhai Balabhai Solanki, the deceased was
fully burnt and the entire hands from the tips of the fingers including the
thumb till the shoulders were burnt. The postmortem note does not
mention that any blue ink was found on the thumb of the deceased and in
the dying declaration and the complaint, the thumb impression of the
deceased Ashwinbhai Balabhai Solanki has not been identified by any
person. The identity of the accused in the complaint or the dying
declaration is not clear and there are no full names of persons, who had
come to threaten the complainant given in the complaint or in the dying
declaration. In the evidence of the Investigating Officer, Prosecution
Witness No. 10 Mohanbhai Ranabhai Bariya, it has come on record that
no Test Identification Parade was conducted and the sole eye-witness
Prosecution Witness No. 3 Ravibhai Balabhai Solanki, who was present
at the time of the incident along with the deceased categorically states
that as soon as his brother started burning, he jumped to the wall and ran
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
away and when he came back, his neighbour Kanabhai had doused his
brother and he and Kanabhai had brought him to the hospital. It is
pertinent to note that the prosecution has not examined witness Kanabai
before the learned Trial Court and in the dying declaration, the deceased
has stated that he was brought to the hospital by his brother and Kanabai
but Prosecution Witness No. 4 Gauribhai Balabhai Solanki, the mother
of the deceased has stated that she had brought her son to the hospital.
There are a number of contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses
and there is no iota of evidence that it was the accused had gone to the
house of the deceased to threaten him.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/988/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
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 Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 189 of 2005 on
22.11.2007, 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
