Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shaileshkumar Rasiklal Rathod on 24 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 887 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHAILESHKUMAR RASIKLAL RATHOD
==========================================================
Appearance:
Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
SHIVAM H CHOKSHI(9120) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 24/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is 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 Presiding Officer, 3 rd Fast Track Court, Gondal
Camp at Upleta (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial
Court") in Sessions Case No. 92/2007 on 23.09.2007,
whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the
respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 498A
and 306 of IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" as he 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 was married to Kavita - the daughter of
the complainant - Ugabhai Karabhai Sondharva, two years
prior to the incident and during their matrimonial life, the
accused had a doubt on the character of Kavita and would
often consume liquor and physically and mentally harass
Kavita. The harassment was to such an extent that she
could not bear the harassment and on 30.03.2007, she
consumed some poisonous substance and committed
suicide. The offence was registered by Ugabhai Karabhai
Sondharva - the father of the deceased on 03.04.2007,
which was registered at Patanvav Police Station I - C.R. No.
10 of 2007 under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Upleta and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,
the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Gondal as
per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and the case was registered as Sessions Case No.
887/2008.
2.3 The accused was 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. 1 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 2 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced 11 oral evidences and 30
documentary evidence to bring home the charge against the
accused. After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the
further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
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 his behalf and stated that a false case
has been filed against him. After the arguments of the
learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were
heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement
and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the
charges levelled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has
filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned
judgment 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 the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been
elicited in favor of the respondent. The case has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted,
illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the 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. Dhwani Tripathi for the
appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Shiwam Chokshi
the respondent. 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 complainant has fully
supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned
judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged
this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the
respondent guilty for the offences.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Shivam Thakkar has submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence
in proper perspective and no interference is required in the
impugned judgement and order.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the
observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of
interference 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 Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313,
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
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".
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
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.
7. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
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 appreciation, 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.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the
evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Ugabhai Karabhai at Exh.
11. The witness is the complainant who has stated that
deceased Kaviben was his younger brother - Mukeshbhai
Karabhai's daughter and she was residing with him since
she was two and a half years old as her mother had expired
and his brother was doing a job. That his widowed sister
Maluben resided besides his house and deceased Kaviben
and his widowed sister Maluben were residing with him.
Kaviben was married to the accused and she had a
daughter out of the marital life. That whenever she would
come to his house, she would tell him about the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
harassment by the accused and on the day of the incident,
he was informed on telephone that Kaviben had consumed
some poisonous substance and she was taken to the
hospital at Junagadh. When he went to the hospital at
Junagadh, she was lying on the bed but was not speaking
anything and she expired and her final rites were done at
Junagadh. That he had filed the complaint at Patanvav
Police Station which is produced at Exh. 12. During the
cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused,
the witness has stated that from the time that Kavita was
married till she expired, she had come four to five times to
his place and on all occasions she had come with the
accused and they had lived happily for four to five days and
had thereafter, returned to her matrimonial home. That he
too had gone on three to four occasions to her house and
they had gone happily and returned happily. That Kavita
had come to his house for the delivery of her daughter and
during that time, the accused had visited her. That she had
never discussed anything about her matrimonial life with
him and during her matrimonial life, she had never filed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
any complaint against the accused. That he had not
discussed any ill treatment to her with any of his
community leaders and while she was in the hospital at
Junagadh, the Junagadh Police had come at that place.
The Junagadh police had inquired his brother Mukesh
about the incident and after they returned to Batwa village,
they had filed the complaint after the third day. The
complaint was filed four days after Kavita had expired and
after the complaint was written, it was not read over to him
and he was asked to affix his signature. Kavita was very
sensitive and she would feel bad in petty matters.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Ramaben
Ugabhai at Exh. 13 and the witness is the wife of the
complainant and aunt 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
stated that her husband's brother - Mukeshbhai had
remarried after his first wife i.e. the mother of Kavita had
died and at that time Kavita was six months old. That he
did not take Kavita to his house and she resided with them
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
till she was married. That her husband had got Kavita
married and after marriage she would come to their house
but had never complained about the accused consuming
liquor. They had never discussed her marital life with any of
the community leaders and Kavita was residing with her
aunt. That she was very sensitive and would feel sad on
petty matters and whenever she would come to their house,
she would come happily and go happily.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Maluben
Karabhai at Exh. 14 and the witness is the paternal aunt of
deceased Kavita who has supported the case of the
prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that after
marriage, Kavita had come to her house on four to five
occasions and on every occasion she had come happily and
lived three to four days and went happily to her
matrimonial house. That she had never complained about
any harassment to her and her in-laws had kept her very
well.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Dr. Sureshbhai
Dhirajlal Pandya at Exh. 15 and the witness is the Medical
Officer who has conducted the post-mortem on the dead
body of deceased Kavita and the post-mortem note is
produced at Exh. 16. The witness has stated that there
were no injuries on the dead body of the deceased as per
column no. 17 and the cause of death was kept pending till
the report of the chemical analyzer was received. That after
the report was received, it was found that imidaclopid
pesticide was found in the viscera and the cause of death
was due to consumption of the poison. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that a person would die even if the
poison was consumed by mistake.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Hirabhai
Mithabhai at Exh. 19 and the witness is the driver of the
rickshaw in which was taken to the hospital after she had
consumed the poison. The witness has merely stated these
facts or not and there is no evidence in his deposition that
the deceased was ill treated by the accused in any manner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Deviben
Rasikbhai at Exh. 20 and the witness is the mother of
accused and in her deposition, there is nothing that has
come and record against the accused.
8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Jayantibhai
Lakhmanbhai at Exh. 21 and the witness has stated that
he was on duty at the Hospital Police Chowki at Junagadh
on 30.03.2007 and he was informed by Dr. Gondalia that
Kaviben has expired due to consumption of some poisonous
substance. That he had prepared the inquest panchnama
which is produced at Exh. 8 and had informed PSI,
Patanvav Police Station by the letter which is produced at
Exh. 22. He had written a letter to the on-duty Medical
Officer, Junagadh for conducting the post-mortem which is
produced at Exh. 23 and had also written a letter to the
Executive Magistrate for the inquest which is produced at
Exh. 24. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the
relatives of the deceased were present at the hospital in
Junagadh.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
8.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Khimjibhai
Shakrabhai Makwana at Exh. 28 and the witness was
working as the Head Constable at the Police Chowki at the
Government Hospital, Junagadh on 30.03.2007 and he has
stated that he was informed about the admission of
Kavitaben Shaileshbhai with consumption of some
poisonous substance and he went to inquire and found that
she was unconscious. He had recorded the statement of her
husband - Shaileshbhai and had informed the Junagadh B
Division Police Chowki about the same. A wireless message
was sent by Junagadh B Division Police Chowki to
Patanvav Police Station and during the cross-examination
by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has
stated that he did not inquire as to whether the patient had
regained consciousness till she had expired.
8.8 The prosecution has examined PW9 - Bijalbhai
Somabhai - ASI Patanvav Police Station at Exh. 32 and the
witness has stated that the complaint recorded by the
Dy.S.P Jetpur was sent to him for registration and the same
was registered at Patanvav Police Station I - C.R. No. 10 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
2007. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that
nobody had come to file the complaint and in the complaint
that was sent to him, there was no date or time written.
That if a married woman dies an unnatural death within
seven years of her marriage, the investigation has to be
done by a Deputy Superintendent of Police and there was
no order passed for an investigation by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police and a PSI is not authorized to
investigate such matters and he has no personal knowledge
about the complaint.
8.9 The prosecution has examined PW10 - Meghrajsinh
Dadubhai Jadeja at Exh. 35 and the witness has stated
that while he was working as a PSI, Jhanvajog Entry No. 6
of 2007 was registered which he had inquired into. That he
had gone to the place of offence but he did not find anyone
and on 31.03.2007 at around 12.15 hours, Accident Death
No. 6 of 2007 was registered as Kavitaben - wife of
Shaileshbhai had expired during treatment. That he had
prepared the panchnama of the place of offence, which is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
produced at Exh. 9 and a bottle of poison was found at the
place of incident. He had recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and the investigation of the Accident
Death No. 6 of 2007 was taken over by Dy.S.P. A.K.
Surwala. The complaint was filed by the uncle of the
deceased which was registered as Patanvav Police Station I
- C.R. No. 10 of 2007 under Section 498A and 306 of the
IPC. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, the witness has stated that during his
investigation, it was found that the deceased did not have
any harassment at her matrimonial home and the fact had
come on record in the deposition of the father of the
deceased. Even in the evidence of the mother of the
deceased, there was no evidence that the deceased was
harassed in any way at her matrimonial home. The
deceased was under treatment and during this time, he had
not contacted her and at the first instance, she was taken
to the Government Hospital at Upleta but he had not
collected the medical papers of the Government Hospital at
Upleta.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
8.10 The prosecution has examined PW11 - Kerman
Kursedh Mysorewala at Exh. 46 and the witness was
working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Jetpur
on 03.04.2007 and he had recorded the complaint of the
complainant. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the
complainant had come to the Patanvav Police Station but
the complaint produced at Exh. 12 does not state the place
or the time at which it was recorded. That he did not record
the statements of any witnesses during the investigation of
the case.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution it has emerged on record that Jhanvajog No.
6/2007 and thereafter, Accident Death No. 6/2007 was
registered regarding the incident and after the incident
immediately as Kavitaben - wife of Shaileshkumar Rasiklal
Rathod had consumed some poisonous substance and she
was taken to the Government Hospital at Upleta but the
medical papers of Government Hospital, Upleta have not
been brought on record. Thereafter, she was brought to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
Hospital at Junagadh but there are no documents
regarding her admission at the Government Hospital at
Junagadh. There is no iota of evidence that there was any
ill-treatment by the accused and as per the case of the
prosecution, the accused had a doubt on the character of
the victim deceased but no evidence to this effect has been
produced on record. The complainant who is the uncle of
the deceased and PW2 - Ramaben Ugabhai who is the wife
of the complainant and the aunt of the deceased has stated
during the examination in chief that the deceased was
harassed by the accused as he used to consume liquor but
they have not breathed a word about the doubt of the
accused on the character of deceased Kavitaben. There is
no particular incident where the accused had harassed
Kavitaben prior to the unfortunate incident and PW3 -
Maluben Karabhai - the paternal aunt of deceased
Kavitaben with whom deceased Kavitaben had resided from
her very childhood has stated that there was no ill-
treatment by her in-laws and the in-laws used to treat her
very nicely at her matrimonial home. During the entire
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
evidence, it has also emerged that no complaint was ever
filed about any ill-treatment by the accused or the in-laws
of deceased Kavitaben and during the marital life, she had
come four to five times the house of the complainant and
PW3 -Maluben Karabhai but all the time she had come
happily with her husband. There are no independent
neighbours examined by the prosecution to prove whether
there was any ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by
the accused and in the present case, the investigation has
been conducted by a Police Sub Inspector and not by a
Deputy Superintendent of Police. There is no evidence as to
where the complaint was drafted as the complaint was a
written complaint and in the evidence, it has emerged that
the incident had occurred on 30.03.2007 and the complaint
was filed on 03.04.2007 and even though the family
members of deceased Kavitaben were present at the
hospital in Junagadh, they did not mention anything about
any harassment to the accused. There is no explanation
regarding the delay in filing the complaint and in the
inquiry of Jhanvajog No. 6/2007 and Accident Death No.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
6/2007, there is no iota of evidence that the deceased was
harassed by the accused in any manner.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of
Chandrappa (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 acquitting the accused of the
charges leveled against them. 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
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/887/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 3 rd Fast Track
Court, Gondal Camp at Upleta in Sessions Case No.
92/2007 on 23.09.2007, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
