Gujarat High Court
Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 1 August, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1131 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=====================================================
LAVJIBHAI SUKHABHAI GOHIL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=====================================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Appellant(s) No. 1, 2, 4
MR HB SHETHNA (2436) for the Appellant(s) No. 3, 5, 6
MR HIMANSHU PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 01/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Six appellants had challenged the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad on 29.8.2003
in Sessions Case no.59 of 2002 (Old Sessions
Case no.119 of 1995). The trial was under
Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
2. Accused no.1-Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil, accused
no.2 - Govindbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, accused no.3-
Bharatbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, accused no.5 -
Bhanuben wife of Maganbhai Muljibhai, accused
no.6 - Maltiben wife of Bharatbhai Lavjibhai
Gohil were convicted under Section 498A IPC and
sentenced for the simple imprisonment for two
years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default
stipulation of three months simple imprisonment.
Accused no.4 - Naniben wife of Lavjibhai
Sukhabhai Gohil convicted under Section 498A IPC
was sentenced for one year simple imprisonment
and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment
of fine, one month simple imprisonment.
2.1 For offence under Section 306 IPC, accused no.1-
Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil, accused no.2 -
Govindbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, accused no.3-
Bharatbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, accused no.5 -
Bhanuben wife of Maganbhai Muljibhai and accused
no.6 - Maltiben wife of Bharatbhai Lavjibhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
Gohil were sentenced for seven years
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, three months simple
imprisonment. Accused nos.1, 2 and 3 were
ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment, while
accused nos.5 and 6 to undergo simple
imprisonment.
2.2 The conviction under Section 304B IPC was
ordered against accused no.4 - Naniben wife of
Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil and sentenced to
undergo three years simple imprisonment with
fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine,
one month simple imprisonment.
2.3 All the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently, and further the learned Trial
Court granted set off under Section 428 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
2.4 The learned Trial Court Judge only found accused
no.4 guilty of offence under Section 304B IPC,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
while no such offence was found against rest of
the accused and in the same way, no offence was
found under Sections 498A and 306 IPC against
the accused no.4 - mother-in-law.
3. During the course of hearing, by an order dated
30.1.2020, the appeal of appellant/accused no.1-
Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil, appellant/accused
no.2 - Govindbhai Lavjibhai Gohil and
appellant/accused no.4 - Naniben wife of
Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil, came to be abated
since deceased. Thus, by that order, the appeal
of father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband came
to be abated.
4. Now the present appeal would be confined for
appellants no.3, 5 and 6, as accused nos.3 and 6
of the trial are younger brother-in-law (Diyar)
and sister-in-law (Derani), while accused no.5
is sister-in-law (Nanand) of the deceased.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
5. The deceased - Ushaben, wife of Govindbhai
Lavjibhai Gohil and daughter of Motibhai
Bhanabhai Gohil, was married to accused no.2.
She was teacher in High School, Dungri. As per
the evidence, accused no.2 - Govindbhai
Lavjibhai Gohil, husband of the deceased was
also a teacher in G.V.D. High School.
6. Dead body of Ushaben, along with two and a half
year daughter-Amisha, were found floating in the
well. The complainant was informed about death
of Ushaben by two persons who had come on the
motorcycle and therefore, the complainant,
Pravin, Girish, PW4 - Dharmishthaben - sister-
in-law (Bhabhi) and PW5 - Hansaben Kiritbhai,
(sister-in-law) of the deceased, went to
Lilapore to the house of accused no.1. There,
they met Ramanbhai, who told them that Ushaben
and Amisha both were dead and were taken to the
hospital. The complainant inquired as to how
that had happened. Accused no.2 - husband stated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
that after taking their meals, they had gone to
bed, and that day morning at about 05:00 a.m.,
there was rain, so he woke up to keep woods
safe, at that time, he found Manisha and Amisha
both were not in bed. After inquiry also, they
could not find them, but A5 sister - Bhanuben
Maganbhai informed A2 that the dead body of Usha
and Amisha were floating in the well. The
accused no.2 informed the complainant that
Ushaben was pregnant, and there was quarrel
regarding abortion and taking tablets and
therefore, she died jumping in the well.
7. Postmortem of Ushaben Govindbhai was conducted
on 28.5.1995 between 14.35 hrs. to 15.50 hrs.
Exh.17 - postmortem of the deceased shows the
cause of death, due to cardio respiratory
failure due to asphyxia due to drowning. The
column no.17 shows CLW over occipital region of
size 3X1 cm muscle deep oblique starting from
right side to left going downward. Columns 18
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
shows no body injury and in column no.20, semi
digested food matter was recorded, bladder
empty, uterus, pregnant with 8-10 weeks size
foetus i cord placenta seen.
8. Thus, the postmortem note records that at the
time of death, the deceased Ushaben was carrying
child of 8-10 weeks, which was alive with
umbilical cord placenta.
9. The complaint at Exh.24 is dated 28.5.1995. The
charge framed shows that the deceased Ushaben
along with two and a half year daughter
committed suicide on 28.5.1995. In the complaint
Exh.24, the complainant has given details about
inquiring from the son-in-law, who had informed
him about the quarrel on earlier night with
regard to abortion and taking tablets.
10. Further, in the complaint Exh.24, the
complainant has stated that his daughter Ushaben
had married 6-7 years ago with Govindbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
Lavjibhai as per the custom of their community.
After marriage, for about one year, they stayed
happily. Thereafter, often his son-in-law would
beat his daughter for not bringing sufficient
things during the marriage. The complainant has
further stated that his daughter's brother-in-
law - Bharatbhai would hold and beat her. Such
facts Ushaben would state whenever she visited
the parental house. After the marriage, his son-
in-law and Bharatbhai often would beat his
daughter. In between for eight months, they had
brought back his daughter Ushaben home and since
Ushaben was a teacher at Dungri, she used to
commute from his house. Thereafter, they had
settled the dispute. The complainant further
states that for certain period, they behaved
well and thereafter, his son-in-law started
harassing his daughter and mother-in-law Naniben
and father-in-law - Lavjibhai also started
harassing. They were saying that she was not
preparing food properly and were asking her, to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
return back to her father's house. Whenever he
would visit the daughter, his daughter Ushaben
would say that his father-in-law, mother-in-law
and brother-in-law - Bharatbhai and sister-in-
law - Maltiben would often beat her and whenever
her sister-in-law (Nanand) Bhanuben would come
from Surat, she would abuse her asking to bring
money from her father's house.
11. In the complaint, the father has given the cause
of suicide by his daughter - Ushaben with the
grandchild - Amisha by jumping in the well. The
complainant stated that it was because of his
son-in-law, brother-in-law - Bharatbhai, sister-
in-law - Maltiben, parents-in-law and Nanand
Bhanuben who would often rebuke her and beat her
and because of that cruelty, she has died and
for that purpose, he had given the complaint.
Thereafter, the complaint further notes that his
son-in-law had demanded Rs.50,000/- for
purchasing a plot and he had given Rs.25,000/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
while he could not make arrangement for rest of
the money.
12. At Exh.19, the cause of death of the daughter -
Amisha was recorded after the postmortem
conducted on 28.5.1995 between 3.50 to 5.00
p.m., which was because of cardio respiratory
failure due to asphyxia owing to drowning.
13. Learned advocate Mr. H.B. Shethna, while arguing
for appellants no.3, 5 and 6 submitted that
prima facie, there would not be any case against
the present appellants as Devar, Devrani and
Nanand. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that
appellant no.5 - sister-in-law (Nanand) was
staying at Surat and was serving as a teacher in
a primary school. Occasionally, she used to
visit Lilapore Village. Advocate Mr. Shethna,
referring to the charge framed by the learned
Trial Court below Exh.1, submitted that the
matrimonial life is shown of six years and the
allegations are only of last two years prior to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
death. Alleging that all the six accused in
abetment were demanding money as dowry and with
an intention to extract the money, deceased -
accused nos.1 and 2 i.e. father-in-law and the
husband were beating Ushaben and the rest of
accused nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 were mentally and
physically harassing her by rebuking and would
ask her to bring money from her parental house
and would force deceased-Ushaben to return back
to her parents home. Advocate Mr. Shethna
submitted that the allegation against all the
accused by the charge framed was of demand of
dowry from the deceased - Ushaben and by mental
and physical harassment, they had instigated for
the commission of suicide, and that were alleged
that the mental and physical harassment was to
the extent of driving Ushaben to cause grave
injuries or put her life to danger and that
because of the harassment of all the accused,
Ushaben on 28.5.1995 along with her daughter of
two and a half year had committed suicide by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
jumping into the well.
14. Learned advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the
charges were framed under Sections 498A, 304B,
306 read with Section 114 IPC. All the accused
were acquitted from the charges under Section
304B IPC, which is for dowry death. Advocate Mr.
Shethna thus stated that if the case of dowry
demand has not been believed, then, the said
cause for inciting the suicide would not survive
and hence, submitted the case under Section
498A and 306 of the IPC would fall and should
not have been believed by the Trial Court.
15. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that if the case
of dowry death is not believed, then, there
would be no motive for committing cruelty, and
further contended that whether motive as alleged
was sufficient ground for the deceased - Ushaben
to take the extreme step. Advocate Mr. Shethna
contended that as per the prosecution case, the
issue arose in last two years of marriage and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
the evidence on record suggest and prove that
the deceased - Ushaben was staying in joint
family of the accused and she wanted independent
house and that had arose the dispute, which was
resolved and the decision was taken amicably by
deceased accused no.2 - husband of Ushaben and
Ushaben to stay in a separate apartment. The
documentary evidence in the form of letter and
the deposition of the brother - PW3 who is a
Professor - Kiritkumar Motilal would corroborate
the fact.
16. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that as per the
deposition of the complainant - father and the
brother - PW3, Ushaben had come back to the
parental house for 5-6 months, which as per the
record would be upto 3.1.1995, when settlement
took place. Residing for five months at the
parental house, it was settled that they would
have their own apartment, separate from the
joint family. Mr. Shethna submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
deceased Ushaben, in letter to the brother, is
not stating of any scarcity of money. No
reference, to get money from any of the members
of the parental family had been made by the
deceased. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that
both the husband and wife were earning members.
They out of their marriage life had two
children-son Mehul aged about five years and
daughter - Nisha who was two and a half years at
time of the death.
17. Referring to the evidence of the father of the
deceased, as PW2 - Motibhai Bhanabhai Gohil,
aged about seventy at the time of giving his
deposition, Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that
the father was cobbler and he had two wives, the
first wife - Gomtiben and out of that wedlock,
he had two sons and a daughter. Son - Dr. Pravin
against whom the complainant had filed a case
for maintenance in Bardoli Court. Advocate Mr.
Shethna submitted that Dr. Pravin later on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
committed suicide by injecting poison. Dr.
Pravin had also married twice. The first wife -
Gangaben of Dr. Pravin had accused Dr. Pravin
and the complainant i.e. the father-in-law -
Motibhai of beating her. The second wife -
Dharmishtha of Dr. Pravin was examined as PW4 at
Exh.49, had turned hostile during the trial.
Second son Mahendra of the complainant was
mentally unstable and passed away in London.
Daughter - Jyotsna was married and pre-deceased
Ushaben by self-immolating and it was a
suspected case of suicide. Advocate Mr. Shethna
submitted that the history of the family would
otherwise show some cause of genetic disorder,
which may not be denied for deceased Ushaben.
18. Advocate Mr. Shethna stated that the
complainant's second marriage was with Laxmiben
who died on 9.12.1998 during her mental
unstability and deceased - Ushaben is from the
said branch. The complainant out of the marriage
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
with Laxmiben had two sons and daughter Ushaben.
Son - Kirit was examined as PW3 who married
Hansaben, whose deposition was recorded as PW5
at Exh.50, while son Girish was not examined,
though Dr. Pravin, his wife Dharmishthaben,
brother of deceased Ushaben, Girish, and
Hansaben - PW5, wife of son Kirit had gone to
Lilapore hearing about the death of Ushaben.
19. Referring to the important dates and events,
Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that as per the
evidence, it can be said that in the year 1989,
deceased Ushaben married accused no.2 - Govind
Lavji Gohil. The charges framed showed that the
issues arose in the last two years. On 3.1.1995,
accused no.2 - husband took the deceased back
with him from her father's home with an
understanding to stay separately. 12.1.1995 is a
letter from the deceased to her brother - Kirit-
PW3, where the deceased stated that on 3.1.1995,
she had gone back to her husband's house after
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
settlement and that they were going to live
separately and had settled for a flat of
Rs.2,51,000/-, for which, they were to deposit
Rs.50,000/-. Deceased had made no demand for the
same from her brother - Kirit, nor there is any
reference of such demand by any of the accused.
Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that on
10.5.1995, Ushaben and her husband - accused
no.2 came to the parental home of the deceased
to attend the Shrimant ceremony of PW5 i.e.
Bhabhi, wife of PW3 - Kirit, where they stayed
together for about 4-5 days and as per the
record, they returned back on 14.5.1995.
Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that till
14.5.1995, there was no dispute between the
husband and wife or the family members, nor with
the present appellant as Diyar, Derani and
Nanand, and deceased passed away on 28.5.1995.
Thus, Advocate Mr. Shethna stated that it would
be now necessary to know as to what had
transpired within these two weeks from 14.5.1995
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
to 28.5.1995.
20. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the only
cause that now becomes relevant was the quarrel
between the husband and wife on the previous
night of the death, where the husband had asked
the deceased to abort the foetus and to consume
pills. Advocate Mr. Shethna contended that the
allegation of demand of money is baseless and
without any corroboration on record. It is got
up and is afterthought, where it could be
perused from the complaint that the allegation
of demand of Rs.50,000/- by the son-in-law and
the fact that the complainant had given
Rs.25,000/- and for rest of the money, no
arrangement could be made was written in the
complaint later on, which becomes quite obvious
in the complaint Exh.24.
21. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the plot was
actually purchased in the name of the brother
PW3, which was by deceased - Ushaben and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
payment of Rs.25,000/- was made by Ushaben,
which gets reflected in the document at Mark-A.
The dispute between the husband and wife was for
having a separate residential house away from
the joint family. Ushaben had also made
investment in postal insurance and had made her
brother PW3 and son - Mehul the nominees.
Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the letter
Exh.34 dated 23.3.1995 by the complainant-
father-in-law to accused no.2 - the son-in-law
would rather show that the father-in-law had
sought assistance from the son-in-law in the
case, which was against him. Advocate Mr.
Shethna also stated that Exh.48 written by the
daughter-Ushaben dated 12.1.1995 to her brother
would clarify, that the disputes were between
the husband and wife and the present appellants
were nowhere involved between them. The letter
dated 17.4.1995 at Exh.35 was by the complainant
father-in-law to daughter and son-in-law
referring to the fact of Dr. Pravin and his wife
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
visiting accused no.2, the letter specifically
refers to the son-in-law, and further the letter
had invited the parents-in-law as guest in the
Shrimant ceremony of PW5 at Surat asking them to
bring the grandson Mehul along with them, and
further informing that his son - Girish would
visit them on 22.4.1995 adding the remembrance
of son - Kirit and daughter-in-law - Hansaben.
Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the letter
at Exh.36 would now become relevant to examine
the relation between both the in-laws. The
letter dated 2.5.1995 is addressed to the son-
in-law and the daughter as well as Vevai and
Vevan i.e. the parents-in-law of the daughter,
Lavjibhai and Naniben as well as
appellant/accused - Bharatbhai and Maltiben and
all the children as well as appellant - Bhanuben
(Nanand) and her husband as Jamai Maganbhai and
their children. The letter was addressed
inviting all of them to join the Shrimant
ceremony of PW5 on 11.5.1995 and Satyanarayan
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
Katha on 10.5.1995. Advocate Mr. Shethna
submitted that had there been any dispute with
regard to money or any demand of money, then,
the reference would have been there in the
letter at Exh.36 written by the complainant,
while it was inviting the whole of the family
members to join the Shrimant ceremony and
Satyanarayan Katha on 10.5.1995 and 11.5.1995.
22. Referring to letter Exh.39 dated 19.4.1993,
Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that in the year
1993, Exh.39 was the letter addressed to the
accused no.2, wherein the son-in-law was
informed by the father-in-law about the work in
progress of building the house, prior to monsoon
and also the fact that on 18.4.1993, there was
an arrangement for meeting of boy and girl for
marriage referring that the girl is from Puna
village of Surat, and further the mother-in-law
sending the son-in-law her regards. Advocate Mr.
Shethna thus submitted that if there had been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
issue of demand of money, then, no father-in-law
would have addressed the son-in-law very fondly.
23. Advocate Mr. Shethna has referred to Exhs.40, 41
and 42 dated 24.8.1993, 21.10.1992 and 17.7.1992
respectively to state that even in the years
1992 and 1993, the relations were cordial and
the father-in-law had written letters to the
son-in-law - Exhs.41 and 42 referring about the
complainant's son - Mahendra of England and
sons-Kirit and Girish and also about the
condition of Dr. Pravin and wife of Pravin,
Gangaben assisting his son Pravin and wife of
the complainant. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted
that the letters were also addressing the
parents of the son-in-law (A2).
24. Referring to Exh.40 dated 24.8.1993, Advocate
Mr. Shethna submitted that it was addressed to
the daughter - Ushaben at Lilapore, also
referring to the son-in-law and the grand
children, was with the information about his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
son- Maganbhai at England and the letter also
bears the address of Maganbhai, requesting the
daughter and the grand child to write letter to
maternal uncle.
25. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that those
letters in the years 1992, 1993 coupled with the
letters of 1995 would clarify that there was no
such issue of dowry demand, nor was there any
other dispute in the family. The only cause that
had come on record is that the day earlier to
suicide, the son-in-law had asked the daughter -
Ushaben to remove the foetus and to take pills.
26. Advocate Mr. Shethna stated that documents
Exhs.25 to 31 produced on record, stating to be
the letters of deceased - Ushaben, written to
the complainant father all become very much
doubtful since the father has not informed about
any such letters to the police, and though the
father in his deposition stated that his
daughter would write inland letters and through
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
covers, no such inland letters, nor covers had
been produced to create authenticity for the
documents at Exhs.25 to 31, which almost all are
of the year 1991 and few of them are undated.
Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the
handwriting of the deceased - Ushaben had not
been proved by the prosecution. Whether those
letters had been handed over to the police was
not proved and further stated that the
circumstances itself would make the documents
Exhs.25 to 31 doubtful, and further submitted
that how the harassment alleged in the documents
at Exhs.25 to 28 would disappear from the year
1992 to 1995.
27. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the
ingredients of Section 498A and Section 306 of
IPC do not get attracted in the present matter
since immediate to the commission of suicide,
there is no evidence to substantiate the
allegation of cruelty against the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
appellants, as Devar, Devrani and Nanand. The
evidence shows that dispute was about the
separation of residential house with the
husband, and about the pregnancy, which deceased
Usha was carrying. Submitting that there was no
proximity of cruelty alleged at the time of
suicide, learned advocate Mr. Shethna urged to
allow the appeal.
28. Learned advocate Mr. Shethna has relied upon the
decisions in the cases of Jani Jainendrakumar v.
State of Gujarat, 2024 (3) GLR 2226, Nareshkumar
v. State of Haryana, 2024 (3) SCC 573, Krishan
Kumar Malik. v. State of Haryana, 2011 (7) SCC
130, Jagdish Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR
2025 SC 2423, Sadashiv Dhondiram Patel v. State
of Maharashtra, 2025 (1) SCC 275 and Ravi v.
State of Punjab, 2025 (3) SCC 584.
29. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Himanshu Patel very
vehemently contended that it is a clear case of
harassment, where the letters between Exhs.25 to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
31 would clarify the harassment by the present
appellants and that they were equally
responsible for the death of Ushaben. Learned
APP Mr. Patel has referred to almost all the
letters from Exhs.25 to 31, and submitted that
they came from the custody of the complainant-
father. Mr. Patel stated that corroboration of
deposition of the complainant-father can be
found from the FIR. Mr. Patel stated that since
the matrimonial life was of six years, the
presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence
Act is required to be drawn. Mr. Patel stated
that the analysis of evidence in the conclusion
drawn by the Trial Court is in accordance with
law and thus, stated that the appeal is required
to be dismissed confirming the conviction and
sentence.
30. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shethna for the
appellants and learned APP Mr. Himanshu Patel
for the State and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
31. Except accused No.5, the mother-in-law, Naniben
Lavjibhai, all were acquitted from the charges
for dowry death under Section 304B of IPC.
Section 113B is for presumption as to dowry
death. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 is for presumption as to abetment of
suicide by married woman.
32. Section 113A and Section 113B of the Evidence is
reproduced hereinunder for understanding the
intricacies of law:
"113-A. Presumption as to abetment
of suicide by a married woman - When
the question is whether the
commission of suicide by a woman had
been abetted by her husband or any
relative of her husband and it is
shown that she had committed suicide
within a period of seven years from
the date of her marriage and that
her husband or such relative of her
husband had subjected her to
cruelty, the court may presume,
having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such
suicide had been abetted by her
husband or by such relative of her
husband.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
Explanation. - For the purposes of
this section, "cruelty" shall have
the same meaning as in section 498-A
of the Indian Penal Code.
113-B-Presumption as to dowry death
- When the question is whether a
person has committed the dowry death
of a woman and it is shown that soon
before her death such woman had been
subjected by such person to cruelty
or harassment for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry, the
Court shall presume that such person
had caused the dowry death.
Explanation. - For the purpose of
this section, "dowry death" shall
have the same meaning as in Section
304-B of Indian Penal Code."
33. In the case of Hans Raj v. State of Haryana,
[(2004) 12 SCC 257], Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as under:
"12. The question then arises as to
whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case the
appellant can be convicted of the
offence under Section 306 IPC with
the aid of the presumption under
Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence
Act. Any person who abets the
commission of suicide is liable to
be punished under Section 306 IPC.
Section 107 IPC lays down the
ingredients of abetment which
includes instigating any person to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
do a thing or engaging with one or
more persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of a thing, if an act or
illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy and in
order to the doing of that thing, or
intentional aid by any act or
illegal omission to the doing of
that thing. In the instant case
there is no direct evidence to
establish that the appellant either
aided or instigated the deceased to
commit suicide or entered into any
conspiracy to aid her in committing
suicide. In the absence of direct
evidence the prosecution has relied
upon Section 113-A of the Indian
Evidence Act under which the court
may presume on proof of
circumstances enumerated therein,
and having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that the
suicide had been abetted by the
accused. The explanation to Section
113-A further clarifies that cruelty
shall have the same meaning as in
Section 498-A of the Penal Code,
1860..."
13. Unlike Section 113-B of the
Indian Evidence Act, a statutory
presumption does not arise by
operation of law merely on proof of
the circumstances enumerated in
Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence
Act. Under Section 113-A of the
Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution
has first to establish that the
woman concerned committed suicide
within a period of seven years from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
the date of her marriage and that
her husband (in this case) had
subjected her to cruelty. Even if
these facts are established the
court is not bound to presume that
the suicide had been abetted by her
husband. Section 113-A gives a
discretion to the court to raise
such a presumption, having regard to
all the other circumstances of the
case, which means that where the
allegation is of cruelty it must
consider the nature of cruelty to
which the woman was subjected,
having regard to the meaning of the
word "cruelty" in Section 498-A IPC.
The mere fact that a woman committed
suicide within seven years of her
marriage and that she had been
subjected to cruelty by her husband,
does not automatically give rise to
the presumption that the suicide had
been abetted by her husband. The
court is required to look into all
the other circumstances of the case.
One of the circumstances which has
to be considered by the court is
whether the alleged cruelty was of
such nature as was likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health of the woman.
The law has been succinctly stated
in Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618.
"12. This provision was introduced
by the Criminal Law (Second)
Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from
26-12-1983 to meet a social demand
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
to resolve difficulty of proof where
helpless married women were
eliminated by being forced to commit
suicide by the husband or in-laws
and incriminating evidence was
usually available within the four
corners of the matrimonial home and
hence was not available to anyone
outside the occupants of the house.
However, still it cannot be lost
sight of that the presumption is
intended to operate against the
accused in the field of criminal
law. Before the presumption may be
raised, the foundation thereof must
exist. A bare reading of Section
113-A shows that to attract
applicability of Section 113-A, it
must be shown that (i) the woman has
committed suicide, (ii) such suicide
has been committed within a period
of seven years from the date of her
marriage, (iii) the husband or his
relatives, who are charged had
subjected her to cruelty. On
existence and availability of the
abovesaid circumstances, the court
may presume that such suicide had
been abetted by her husband or by
such relatives of her husband.
Parliament has chosen to sound a
note of caution. Firstly, the
presumption is not mandatory; it is
only permissive as the employment of
expression 'may presume' suggests.
Secondly, the existence and
availability of the abovesaid three
circumstances shall not, like a
formula, enable the presumption
being drawn; before the presumption
may be drawn the court shall have to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
have regard to 'all the other
circumstances of the case'. A
consideration of all the other
circumstances of the case may
strengthen the presumption or may
dictate the conscience of the court
to abstain from drawing the
presumption. The expression -- 'the
other circumstances of the case'
used in Section 113-A suggests the
need to reach a cause-and-effect
relationship between the cruelty and
the suicide for the purpose of
raising a presumption. Last but not
the least, the presumption is not an
irrebuttable one. In spite of a
presumption having been raised the
evidence adduced in defence or the
facts and circumstances otherwise
available on record may destroy the
presumption. The phrase 'may
presume' used in Section 113-A is
defined in Section 4 of the Evidence
Act, which says -- 'Whenever it is
provided by this Act that the court
may presume a fact, it may either
regard such fact as proved, unless
and until it is disproved, or may
call for proof of it."
34. Section 113A of the Evidence Act makes provision
to take the meaning of cruelty, as has been
given under Section 498A of IPC for considering
the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
married woman. To prove the charge of Section
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
498A of IPC, the prosecution has to establish
that the husband or his relative subjected such
woman to cruelty. The term 'cruelty' is
explained in two parts of Section 498A. The
first part speaks of willful conduct of a nature
that is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
the life, limb or health, either physical or
mental of such woman. The second part of Section
498A provides for harassment of a woman with a
view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security on account of this failure or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
35. Section 498A of IPC does not attract every
harassment or every type of cruelty. The
prosecution has to prove that the willful
conduct and the harassment were with a view to
force her to commit suicide or to fulfill
illegal demand of dowry.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
36. The marriage span was for the period of six
years. The provision of Section 113A of the
Indian Evidence Act would get applicable for
presumption to abetment of suicide by a married
woman provided cruelty is proved. It states that
if a married woman commits suicide within seven
years of the marriage and it is shown that her
husband or his relative subjected her to
cruelty, the Court may presume that the suicide
was abetted by the husband or his relatives.
Section 113A of the Evidence Act introduces a
presumption, meaning the Court can infer that
the suicide was abetted if the conditions are
met. The stage of application of Section 113A
would arise only when there is initial evidence
of any act on part of accused which would fall
within the definition of cruelty.
36.1 Unlike Section 113B of the Evidence Act, a
statutory presumption does not arise by
operation of law merely on proof of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
circumstances enumerated in Section 113A of the
Act. Under Section 113A, the prosecution has
first to establish that the woman concern
committed suicide within a period of seven years
from the date of her marriage and that her
husband or any relative of her husband has
subjected her to cruelty. The Court is required
to look into all the other circumstances of the
case; one of the circumstances which has to be
considered by the Court is whether the alleged
cruelty was of such nature, as was likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
of the woman, as observed in the case of Hans
Raj (Supra).
36.2 The presumption under Section 113A is not
mandatory, it is only permissive, as the
expression used in Section 113A is 'may
presume'. The existence of the circumstances (i)
the woman has committed suicide (ii) suicide has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
been committed within a period of seven years
from the date of her marriage (iii) the husband
or his relatives who are charged, has subjected
her to cruelty shall not like a formula, enable
the presumption being drawn, before the
presumption may be drawn, the Court shall have
regard to all other circumstances of the case.
The other circumstances of the case used in
Section 113A suggests the need to reach a cause
and effect relationship between cruelty and the
suicide for the purpose of raising a
presumption. The requirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not stand altered even
after the introduction of Section 498A IPC and
Section 113A of the Evidence Act. If reasonable
doubts exist about the complicity of the accused
in respect to the offences allege, then benefit
of doubt would be in favour of the accused.
36.3 While presumption under Section 113B of the
Evidence Act is presumption of law. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
legislature in its wisdom has used the word
'shall', thus making a mandatory application on
the part of the Court to presume that the death
has been caused by the person, who has subjected
her to cruelty or harassment in connection with
any demand of dowry. It is unlike the provision
of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, where a
discretion has been conferred upon the Court,
wherein it has been provided that the Court may
presume abetment of suicide by a married woman.
37. In the present case, depositions have been given
by the family members; (i) father - Motibhai
Banabhai Gohil (PW2) (ii) brother - Kiritkumar
Motilal (PW3) (iii) Sharmisthaben W/o. Dr.
Pravin (PW4), (iv) Hansaben W/o Kiritbhai
Motibhai (PW5), (v) Investigating Officer (PW6)
and (vi) Dr. Jayant Jhaveri (PW1).
38. Dr. Jayant Jhaveri (PW1) was examined to prove
the postmortem report of both, deceased Ushaben
and child Anisha. The postmortem was conducted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
of Ushaben on 28.5.1995 between 2.35 to 3.50
hours and of child Amisha from 3.50 to 5.00
hours. The cause of death of both the deceased,
as referred hereinabove, was due to cardio
respiratory failure due to asphyxia due to
drowning.
38.1 The Doctor proved the documents Exhs.17, 18 and
19, two postmortem notes and a certificate. The
postmortem, Exh.17 of Ushaben made the
reference of uterus with pregnancy of eight-ten
weeks' size foetus with cord placenta seen. The
evidence, thus, proves that at the time of
death, Ushaben was carrying a foetus. The cause
referred by the complainant-father, having
inquired from the son-in-law (A2) was the
quarrel between the couples to remove the
foetus and for consuming pills. The husband-
accused (A2) stated that in the morning at
about 5 O' clock when accused no.2 awoke
because of the rain shower and to make safe
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
arrangement for the woods, he did not find Usha
and daughter Amisha in the bed.
39. The complainant (PW2) - Motilal Gohil's
deposition shows that he had four sons, Pravin,
Mahendra, Kirit and Girish and two daughters
namely Jyotsana and Ushaben.
39.1 PW2, the father on knowing about the suicide of
daughter, had gone with the other family members
to daughter in-law's place, where father met
Ramanbhai, who told PW2 that Ushaben and Amisha
were taken to hospital in a dead condition.
39.2 When PW2 asked his son-in-law - accused no.2
about how the incident occurred, accused no.2
replied that it was raining, so he woke to
arrange for woods, he did not find Usha and
Amisha in bed. They searched in the surrounding
place, but did not find them.
39.3 PW2 was informed that, accused no.5 - Bhanuben,
sister of the son-in-law, told accused no.2 that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
the body of both were floating in the well. Son-
in-law - accused no.2 told the complainant that
Usha was pregnant and when he asked her to take
pills for abortion, there was quarrel and
therefore, she fell into the well.
40. The deposition of father of deceased, shows the
immediate cause of suicide. This incident is
related only with the son-in-law, husband of
deceased.
41. Here the appellants as brother-in-law and both
sisters-in-law as Diyar, Derani and Nanand are
not related to the incident which connected
suicide. The only connection of Nanand is that
she had informed accused no.2 about Usha and
Amisha's dead body in the well. Brother-in-law -
Bharat - accused no.3, sister-in-law-accused
no.6 and sister-in-law - Nanand - accused no.5
all the three along with deceased's father-in-
law and deceased husband were convicted for the
offence under Section 306 IPC for abetment to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
suicide.
42. In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus
State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it has
been held that in a case of alleged abetment of
suicide, there must be proof of direct or
indirect act(s) 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 deceased to commit suicide, conviction in
terms of Section 306 IPC would not be
sustainable.
42.1 In the case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana,
(2020) 15 SCC 359 After considering the
provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, the
Court held that conviction under Section 306 IPC
is not sustainable on the allegation of
harassment without there being any positive
action proximate to the time of occurrence on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
the part of the accused which led or compelled
the person to commit suicide.
42.2 In the case of Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244,
it was held that there has to be an act of
incitement on the part of the accused proximate
to the date on which the deceased committed
suicide. The act attributed should not only be
proximate to the time of suicide but should also
be of such a nature that the deceased was left
with no alternative but to take the drastic step
of committing suicide.
43. The facts of the case as got unfold during the
trial by way of the complaint and deposition of
complainant - father, the proximate cause as
could be attributed was the talk between husband
and wife in the close door of bed room.
43.1 The husband asked the wife to remove the foetus
by consuming pills. It appears that the wife got
hurt and taking along with her two and a half
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
year old daughter, ended her life by jumping in
well.
44. In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2025 (1) Crimes 347 (SC), the
observations are made with regard to abetment of
suicide. It has been held that in order to bring
a case within purview of Section 306 IPC, there
must be a case of suicide and in commission of
said offence, person who is said to have abetted
commission of suicide must have played active
role by act of instigation or by doing certain
act to facilitate commission of suicide. It has
been further observed that the act of abetment
by person charged with said offence must be
proved and established by prosecution before he
could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. It is
further observed that to satisfy requirement of
instigation, accused by his act or omission or
by a continued course of conduct should have
created such circumstances that deceased was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
left with no other option, except to commit
suicide.
45. The evidence of PW2 father, would be required to
be analyzed to examine the role and the conduct
of the present appellants to consider whether
there was any harassment or insulting behaviour
proximate to the suicide incident to constitute
abetment.
45.1 The marriage span as per father was six to seven
years. Father said that initially, they stayed
together nicely and after a year, the son-in-
law-Govind - accused no.2 started harassing, by
saying that she had brought less utensils and in
that way would beat his daughter - Usha. His
brother-in-law - Bharat - accused no.3 and
sister-in-law - accused no.6 would also beat
her. The father came to know because his
daughter used to tell her.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
45.2 This incident of beating deceased Usha for not
bringing sufficient utensil is also related to
son-in-law. There is a general statement of
accused no.3 and accused no.6 beating Usha.
45.3 The most significant thing, which requires
attention is that father came to know about this
beating, as his daughter had informed her
orally. There is no refers of having such
knowledge by letters.
45.4 The evidence is of beatings after one year of
marriage. Then the testimony suggest that one
year prior to suicide, because of quarrel, they
had brought Usha to their house.
45.5 What was the quarrel, the father is not giving
detail or explaining it. Son-in-law said that he
would not quarrel or beat, and saying so, son-
in-law compromised and took back Ushaben.
45.6 So this incident prior, one year of suicide is
also connecting son-in-law - deceased - accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
no.2.
45.7 The allegation is now only of the last one year
prior to the commission of suicide. After
settlement, the son-in-law took Ushaben back. At
the time of death, the couple was having one
five year old son and a two and half year old
daughter (deceased).
45.8 PW2-father then stated that his daughter was
commuting from Gunasvel to Dungri to attend the
service at high school. The witness said he was
keeping his daughter with him. The deposition
says that thereafter, she was kept well for
sometime and then there was quarrel and beatings
and would say that she had brought less utensil
and in dowry, they demanded money, and father-
in-law and mother-in-law would say that she was
not cooking well and would ask her to bring Rs
50,000/-. He had given Rs 25,000/-. He further
deposed that Ushaben used to complain to him.
There was quarreling, she was beaten and were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
asking for money, because of this harassment and
pills for abortion, Ushaben committed suicide,
so he gave complaint Exh.24 at Valsad Police
Station.
45.9 The allegation of last day incident was not
against the present appellants accused nos.3, 5
and 6. The father has alleged of father-in-law
and mother-in-law rebuking her for being not
efficient in cooking.
45.10 Further allegation, which is specifically said
is father-in-law and mother-in-law asked Ushaben
to bring Rs.50,000/- and that the father PW2
gave Rs.25,000/-.
45.11 This evidence has been cross-examined and
contradicted. In cross-examination, the witness
was asked about last three lines in the
complaint Exh.24 written in small handwriting,
which he denied to have been written later on
and that it does not bear his initial on it. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
three lines in the complaint Exh.24 is about the
son-in-law asking Rs.50,000/- from him and that
complainant had paid Rs.25,000/- and for the
rest, he could not make arrangement.
45.12 So from Exh.24, it transpires that the son-in-
law had demanded Rs.50,000/- and father-in-law
had paid Rs.25,000/- to the son-in-law. In face
of this evidence at Exh.24, the testimony of
both parents-in-law having demanded Rs.50,000/-
becomes false.
45.13 Here too, accused nos.3, 5 and 6 are not
involved in connection with the demand of money
as dowry.
45.14 Except mother-in-law - accused no.4 - Naniben,
all were acquitted from the offence punishable
under Section 304B of IPC.
45.15 In the examination-in-chief, the father - PW2
had produced Exhs.25 to 31 stating it to be the
letter written by her daughter during her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
matrimonial life through cover and inland
letter.
45.16 The learned Trial Court Judge has observed in
the impugned judgment and order that the
objection had been raised against reading the
documents Exhs.25 5o 31 in evidence.
46. Learned advocate Mr. Shethna had contended that
the letters as stated by the father were sent by
cover and inland letter. The postal stamp and
seal of the post department is not proved on it,
nor such cover or inland letters are produced
and further those being in the handwritings of
Ushaben were not proved. Reliance was placed on
the case of State of Maharashtra v. Hemant
Kawadu Chauriwal & Ors., (2015) 17 SCC 598,
wherein it has been observed in Paragraphs 9 and
12 as under:-
"9. The second issue which is of
paramount consideration is the
alleged letters written by the
deceased to her father, which were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
argued to be in her own handwriting.
PW 3 himself deposed that he only
produced a few letters which helped
his case. Further, he himself
testified that the letters were
written by the deceased in her own
handwriting as was known to him. The
prosecution, however, had a duty to
establish the veracity of such an
important piece of evidence. The
prosecution explained that it was
unable to find the handwriting of
the deceased by any other means.
However, it is not explained as to
what steps were taken to investigate
the said evidence in the case.
Another important fact which is on
record is that while recording the
dying declaration, the Naib
Tahsildar deposed that the deceased
was illiterate and the dying
declaration was read over and
explained to her. These two facts
are self-contradictory and severely
detrimental to the prosecution case
which ought to have been explained
by the prosecution.
12. In our opinion, the two pivotal
evidence i.e. dying declaration and
the alleged letters having not been
proved, strikes at the very root of
the prosecution case. We are,
therefore, of the view that the High
Court rightly pointed out the
lacunae in the shabby investigation
of the case. Moreover, the
prosecution failed to stand its
ground and bring home its case."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
47. The letters Exhs.25 to 31 produced by father PW2
were challenged in cross-examination. The
documents were introduced in evidence by list
Exh.11. The evidence of the father was that his
daughter Ushaben during her marriage life used
to write letters to him. She used to write
letters in covers and by inland letters. These
letters he had kept it safe. He had given the
letters to the police after the complaint.
Producing the documents in evidence, PW2 stated
that the letters written were of perpetrating
harassment and for demand of money. PW2 in the
evidence in cross, stated that he studied in
primary school. He is not fluent in reading, but
can read arranging words. Witness was shown his
complaint Exh.24. He stated that he cannot
properly read the facts therein and he is not in
a position to read, but denied that the last
three lines of the complaint was added later on
in small letters. He affirmed that his initials
were not taken on those writings.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
48. In the cross-examination, later on again, the
witness PW2-father was asked to read complaint
Exh.24. The Trial Court observed that the
witness read the complaint, as would be read by
any ordinary person.
49. Reading Exh.24, witness - PW2 stated that there
is no fact of letters written by his daughter.
The witness volunteered that he had informed the
police. The letters, which he had produced, he
said had come in post. Certain letters were post
cards and certain in cover. Witness stated that
he does not have the cover of the letters and
does not remember whether inland letters had
come and affirmed that the letters produced do
not contain Postcard. 5-6 days after the
complaint, he had produced the letters which
were from the year 1991 to 1995. Witness stated
that in the year 1991, there was settlement
between husband and wife, and after settlement,
his daughter had gone to the matrimonial house.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
50. It appears that, the witness - PW2 had tried to
project before the Court that he does not have
fluency in reading words. However, that proved
to be wrong during the trial.
51. The documents Exhs.25 to 31 are on full page
printed lined paper. Witness admitted that there
is no post card, inland letters, nor the postal
cover of the letters.
52. The witness was crossed and questioned that the
handwriting in the documents Exhs.25 to 31 were
not of his daughter and were got up later on.
PW2 also admitted that police had never asked
for the natural handwritings of his daughter.
53. Exh.30 does not bear any date. It has been
brought in the evidence, that the said letter
suggests settlement brought by Shilpaben and
Naginbhai between the husband and wife. After 4
to 5 months, Exh.30 was written by the daughter
at village Dungri. Witness stated that his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
daughter was serving at village Sabha and from
there got her transferred to school at Dungri.
PW2 does no know whether Shilaben and Naginbhai
were serving at Dungri School.
54. The letter, Exh.30, if read in evidence, then
the same is about settling dispute between
husband and wife.
55. The witness - PW2 further was confronted with
the contents of Exh.30, wherein there is a
mention of three months pregnancy, which the
witness said the foetus was of child Amisha,
witness does not remember whether 4-5 months,
his daughter had stayed at Kharel. He does not
even remember the year. He has not verified
personally of the fact noted in Exh.30.
56. In the cross-examination, the suggestion was
that the letters produced were not written by
daughter Ushaben and were all concocted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
57. Documents Exh.25 to 31 are with the dates
corresponding as below.
Exhibit Dates
25 04.05.1991
26 11.05.1991
27 22.12.1991
28 01.12.1991
29 -
30 -
31 13.11.1993
While letters from defence side are dated as
under:-
Exhibit Dates
42 11.07.1992
41 21.10.1992
40 24.08.1993
39 19.04.1993
38 16.12.1998
37 10.05.1995
36 02.05.1995
35 17.04.1994
34 23.03.1995
33 08.01.1994
32 30.03.2001
58. PW3 - Kiritkumar Motilal, Professor brother of
the deceased Ushaben was asked in the
examination-in-chief about the documents at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
Exh.25 to 31. He stated that those letters were
in the handwriting of his sister - Ushaben. In
the cross-examination, the brother stated that
out of the total letters, he had read two of
them after the incident and thereafter,
improvising the same, he stated that he had seen
the letters after the complaint was filed by his
father and that too, on the next day i.e. 30th.
He saw the original letters with his father.
Those letters he had seen at Village Gunasvel at
about 4-5 O'Clock in the afternoon. Those
letters, which he had seen he stated, were
inland letters. He does not know whether those
letters have come through post.
59. It is strange and surprising to note that the
letters at Exhs.25, 26, 27 and 30 were addressed
to this witness - Kiritbhai too. Though these
letters were addressed to him, at the relevant
time, those letters were not read by him. He saw
these letters only after the FIR given by his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
father and that too, in the custody of the
father.
60. The investigating officer - Kishorsinh Gagubha
Vaghela examined as PW6 at Exh.53, in the cross-
examination, was asked about the letters, who
stated that the complainant has produced the
xerox copy of the letters, but he had not drawn
any Panchnama to receive the document. He had
also not investigated whether those letters were
received by post or otherwise and he had not
inquired about the postal cover of the letters,
which were stated to have been received through
postal authority. He stated that the complainant
had produced a copy of the inland letters.
Exh.48 post card was not seized for the
investigation and he further stated that the
photo copies which were given by the complainant
did not include Exh.48 dated 12.1.1995 and he
does not know as to how Exh.48 had come into the
police investigation papers. He further
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
clarified that except him, none had investigated
the matter. He does not know how that letter had
come in police paper and he cannot say whether
that letter was placed in the papers.
61. The Police Inspector further stated that he had
not made inquiry about the details in the
letters and he further stated that when the
xerox copies were produced, at that time, he had
not seized the originals since the complainant
was not ready to give him the original letters.
He further stated that the complainant clarified
that he was not having the original with him at
that relevant time and that he would produce
them in the Court.
62. The witness further affirmed, that he had not
sent photo copies of the letters, which were
produced, for any expert opinion, to know
whether it were in the handwriting of the
deceased.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
63. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is
about the opinions of experts. Section refers to
the evidentiary value of the expert evidence.
When the Court has to form an opinion upon the
identity of the handwriting, the opinions upon
that point, of persons specially skilled in
question as to identity of handwritings becomes
the relevant fact. The Court can rely upon the
expert opinion. In the case of Madan Gopal
Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC 204, it has
been observed as under:-
"The expert witness is expected to
put before the Court all materials
inclusive of the data which induced
him to come to the conclusion and
enlighten the Court on the
technical aspect of the case by
explaining the terms of science so
that the Court although, not an
expert may form its own judgment
on those materials after giving due
regard to the expert's opinion..."
64. The plain meaning of Section 45 is that the
Court in order to form an opinion as to the
identity of handwriting can treat the opinion
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
upon that point of persons specially skilled in
questions as to identity of handwriting as
relevant facts. The opinion of such person
called as experts are relevant facts and is
admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 45
of the Act as relevant facts. No doubt the
science with regard to identification and
handwriting signature is not conclusive like
that the science of identification of thumb
impression, yet when due corroboration to the
opinion of the handwriting expert, through
ocular and circumstantial evidence is provided,
then certainly such an opinion could be relied
upon.
65. The investigating officer in the present matter
has not cared to send the disputed writings for
handwriting expert opinion. The investigating
officer was asked to refer to the investigation
papers and thereafter, he stated that he had not
sent any sample or Muddamal for analysis to FSL.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
There appears to be vital lapse on the part of
the investigating officer.
66. The letters Exhs.25 to 31 become doubtful since
the son - Kiritkumar had never read the letters
at the relevant time though it was addressed to
him along with his father. The letters were also
addressed to Girish, another son of the
complainant. Girish was not examined during the
trial. Kirit, Girish and Usha are the children
of the complainant with his wife - Laxmiben. The
letters from Exhs.25 to 28 are of the year 1991,
while there are no dates on Exhs.29 and 30 and
suddenly, Exh.31 reflects date 13.11.1993, while
contrary to that, the documents produced from
Exhs.34 to 41 are postal letters, which are
admitted by the complainant, which are of the
years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. Two of the
letters are even written after the death of
Ushaben. Exhs.39 and 40 are dated 19.4.1993 and
24.8.1993, if perused, the complainant has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
addressed the son-in-law as his dearest. In that
circumstances, the document at Exh.31 even
becomes more doubtful. In absence of observation
of the learned Judge with regard to the
admissibility without the assistance of the
expert opinion, the documents Exhs.25 to 31
cannot be believed to have been proved.
67. In cross-examination, witness PW2 was asked
whether he had withdrawn Rs.25,000/- from bank
account to pay. He stated that the demand of
Rs.50,000/- was made in 1993-94. That demand was
for purchase of house. He had never given
anything in dowry to Ushaben. He had given
utensils and other things as per the custom of
their community. The defence had tried to bring
on record facts of a plot purchased in the name
of son Kiritbhai for the amount of Rs.25,000/-,
but the father denied and stated that the said
plot was purchased by his daughter Ushaben in
her own name. PW2 does not remember whether the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
plot was purchased from her salary and does not
remember whether the plot was purchased from
Rs.25,000/- which he had given. A receipt 'Mark
A' was shown to witness PW2, which he admitted
was in the name of his son Kirit. He denied to
give any clarification.
68. Kiritbhai was examined as PW3 who stated that
his father's financial condition was general.
Father's source of income was cobbling and three
vighas land. His father is a cobbler at
Gunasavel Village.
68.1 Kiritbhai deposed that after the incident, he
came to know that his sister had spent money to
purchase a plot in his name for Rs.25,000/-. He
does not know that in the year 1990, his sister
had taken postal insurance and he was made the
nominee. So the fact of Rs.25,000/- gets clear
by the documentary evidence. The money so used
was to purchase plot in the name of PW3 -
brother of Ushaben. Whether the money was of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
Ushaben or PW2 - father does not become clear.
68.2 Kiritbhai - PW3 also affirmed that his father -
PW2 had filed an application for maintenance
against his son - Dr. Pravinbhai.
68.3 PW3 does remember when his sister had come
earlier at parental home for eight months after
marriage. He said that in the year 1994-95, she
had stayed for 5-6 months.
68.4 The witness PW3 was asked the years of letter
Exhs.25 to 31, which he said he does not know.
He had read two letters out of them. Those
letters he had seen next day of giving
complaint.
69. Nothing had been proved that those letters
Exhs.25 to 31 were given to the police. There is
no evidence of Panchnama drawn by the police
accepting the letters Exhs.25 to 31. Exhs.25 to
31 are on full scape papers. There is no postal
stamp and seal. There are no cover or inland
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
letters. PW3 admitted that he had not stated
before the police that before 3.1.1995 in the
period of May 1994, her sister had come because
of harassment at in-law's place. PW3 produced
post card with signature and seal at Exh.48. It
was written by Ushaben to PW3 - her brother. PW3
said that he was not knowing whether his sister
along with her husband wanted to stay
separately. Referring to Exh.48, PW3 was
questioned that her sister had laid down a
condition to stay away from other members of
family in a separate apartment and thereafter,
only on that condition, had returned back. To
that, PW3 brother replied that there was
harassment, so accused no.2 Govindbhai must have
laid down the condition, that is what written in
the letter.
70. Exh.48 is dated 12.1.1995. The date of suicide
is 28.5.1995. It is a post card written by
deceased Ushaben to PW3, addressed as Kiritkumar
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
Motilal Gohil at Arts and Commerce College,
Savli, District Vadodara, wherein Ushaben has
stated of receiving money order from witness PW3
and her father giving her Rs.200/-. She has
stated that on 3.1.1995, she had returned to
Lilapore and that her husband henceforth would
not beat or quarrel, and on the condition of
staying in an apartment, accused no.2 had alone
brought her back.
70.1 Ushaben has referred of seeing flats and the
flat on first floor was of Rs.2,55,000/- and
initially Rs.50,000/- was to be paid, and she
has clarified that it has been decided to pay
the money by getting money on land. Ushaben had
asked for her brother's (PW3) opinion and had
asked PW3 to write at school. Rest of the letter
was about the well being of sister-in-law who
was pregnant and Ushaben had invited sister-in-
law (PW5) to visit her at Lilapore.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
71. The witness - PW3 affirmed that the condition of
staying separately from the joint family was
accepted by accused no.2. He affirmed that since
his sister had put a condition to stay separate,
his brother-in-law - accused no.2 had selected
an apartment worth Rs.2,55,000/-. PW3 affirmed
through the letter Exh.48 that his sister had
asked for his opinion. He had not replied the
letter, nor had given his opinion.
72. Two aspects that get clarified; one, the
deceased wanted to stay separately away from the
joint family; another, the payment of
Rs.25,000/- with receipt Mark 'A' in the name of
brother PW3 and the admission of the brother
that the plot was purchased in his name by the
sister making a payment of Rs.25,000/- which he
come to know after the incident.
72.1 So the allegation of demand of Rs.50,000/- as
dowry and father making payment of Rs.25,000/-
becomes doubtful. Exh.48 letter is coming from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
the custody of PW3. The letter does not refer to
any demand of money by accused no.2 or other
members of the family.
72.2 The decision of buying an apartment was with the
purchase money of Rs.2,55,000/-. The letter by
sister to brother is asking for opinion but not
of money. The complainant father PW2 denied to
give any explanation for Mark 'A'.
72.3 PW2 - father was asked about certain letters
written by him addressing Ushaben, grandson
Mehulkumar and son-in-law Govindbhai - accused
no.2.
72.4 Exh.32 is the letter informing the death of
Pinkal, the daughter of his son Girish. The date
of death was 29.3.2001, and the letter wrote of
the after death rituals to be held.
72.5 Exh.34 is the post card dated 23.3.1995 written
by PW2 in his own handwriting, informing his
son-in-law accused no.2 about the case against
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
him and asking the son-in-law to support him in
the Court.
73. Doctor son Pravin was practicing at Vasda, who
was the son with witness first wife Gomti who
was staying separate. The witness does not know
whether his son Pravin died committing suicide.
He attended the cremation procession.
73.1 As per the defense, PW2 father had filed
maintenance case against Doctor son Pravin at
Bardoli Court. Pravin's first wife - Gangaben
filed case against Dr. Pravin and PW2 - father-
in-law complaining about beatings. The second
wife of Dr. Pravin - Dharnishtha PW4 at Exh.49
has turned hostile in the matter.
73.2 In the cross-examination, PW2 also admitted of
his daughter's Jyotsnaben death who pre-deceased
Ushaben, PW2 father stated that daughter Jyotsna
died because of burns on account of bursting of
primus stove and husband of Jyotsnaben was also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
teacher. The suggestion was denied that
Jyotsnaben too died committing suicide. There
was a Criminal Case.
73.3 Exh.35 dated 17.4.1995 was the letter written by
PW2 to accused no.2 and Ushaben at Lilapore. The
letter was informing about Shrimant ceremony of
Hashuben (PW5) wife of PW3-Kirit and other
family members. On 10.5.1995, a Katha was
arranged at PW2 house, so PW2 had invited son-
in-law - accused no.2 to attend it that letter
of invitation was produced at Exh.36.
73.4 Exh.38 is the letter by son of PW2, informing
the death of Laxmiben wife of PW2. She died on
9.12.1998.
73.5 Exh.39 dated 19.4.1993 is the letter also
written by PW2, about the construction of house
and for arrangement of bride seeing.
73.6 PW2 identified Exh.40 in his handwriting
referring to Mahendrabhai his son and brother-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
in-law (Saala) Mohanbhai both staying at London.
The witness also stated that the mental health
of his son Mahendra was not good.
73.7 Letter dated 21.10.1992 was in PW2 handwriting
produced at Exh.41 referring about the health of
his sons, Kirit and Girish.
73.8 Letter dated 11.7.1992 Exh.42 is denied in the
handwriting of PW2. It refers to Gangaben wife
of Dr. Pravin serving mother-in-law. At that
relevant time, wife of PW2 Laxmiben was admitted
in hospital.
74. Advocate Mr. Shethna urged to consider the
family history and medical condition to submit
that the family was suffering from some genetic
disorder. This aspect of suicide because of
genetic disorder cannot be considered unless
medically proved.
75. Kiritkumar brother PW3 appears to be near to
Ushaben. The sister had also purchased a plot by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
paying Rs.25,000/- in his name. As per PW3
deposition in the year 1995, he was serving as
Professor at Savli at Arts and Commerce College.
Ushaben was married to Govindbhai - accused no.2
in the year 1989. He said that sister Ushaben
was a teacher at Dungri and accused no.2 was
serving in G.V.D. High School. They had two
children Mehul of five and a half year and
Amisha two and a half in the year 1995.
75.1 Brother Kiritkumar deposed that the first year
of marriage was good between Ushaben and accused
no.2 and thereafter, quarrels started between
both of them and because of quarrel, his sister
had come to their house for about eight months
and stayed there.
75.2 PW3 gave evidence that Ushaben had come for
eight months to their house, she had informed
that her husband was beating her and Nanand -
accused no.5 weekly or fortnightly would come
and quarrel with her and parents-in-law would
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
taunt her by saying that they would be doing the
same as had happened to her sister and had asked
her to go home and bring money from her father.
At that time, there was settlement and then had
sent Ushaben back to matrimonial house. PW3
further stated that for about one and a half
year, they kept her nicely and again started
quarrels and beatings and prior to 31.1.1995 in
and about May, 1994, his sister had come back
because of harassment in her matrimonial home.
75.3 The evidence of PW3 does not name appellants as
Devar or Derani. The sister-in-law - accused
no.5 is not specifically alleged with any
instances, the only allegation is of her
quarreling with deceased Ushaben.
75.4 The main date is 3.1.1995 which gets reflected
in the letter by the deceased Exh.48, which is
referred by PW3 brother. In the examination-in-
chief, PW3 further states that thereafter, on
10.5.1995, his sister Ushaben and brother-in-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
law-accused no.2 both had come for the Shrimant
(baby shower) and had stayed on 14th and 15th.
Accused no.5 Bharatbhai and accused no.1 father
of accused no.2 took them back.
75.5 The witness affirmed in the cross-examination
that since the relation between his sister and
brother-in-law (accused no.2) was cordial, thus
they had come and attended the Shrimant Ceremony
at his home.
75.6 So on 3.1.1995, accused no.2 husband took back
deceased Ushaben from the father's home with the
understanding to buy a flat and stay separately.
Exh.48 letter by deceased is addressed to PW3
brother on 12.1.1995 informing that they had
seen one flat valued Rs.2,55,000/- Rs.50,000/-
was to be paid as advance amount, but Exh.48
does make complaint of any demand by any of the
accused for bringing Rs.50,000/- from father.
The letter Exh.48 is rather asking brother's
opinion.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
75.7 PW3 states that since the relation of husband
and wife were cordial, so they had visited their
house for Shrimant on 14th and 15th. They had
come on 10th May 1995.
76. So from 3.1.1995 till 15.5.1995, there was no
dispute between husband and wife to the
knowledge of PW3, brother and even PW2 father,
who too had invited son-in-law for 'Katha' on
10.1.1995.
76.1 The letter Exh.34 dated 23.5.1995, Exh.35 of
17.4.1995, Exh.36 of 2.5.1995 by father-in-law
addresses as his dearest son-in-law. The letters
are of April and May. So in this period, there
was no issue.
76.2 There is no reference of present three
appellants of any harassment by them.
76.3 Prior to 3.1.1995, deceased had come back to her
father's place since she wanted to stay separate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
which is admitted by PW3. On assurance of
staying separately, they had gone back. Ushaben
was again carrying with the foetus of 8-10
weeks.
76.4 In the year 1993, Exh.39 and Exh.40 are two
letters addressed on 19.4.1993 and 24.8.1993,
which both addresses the son-in-law as the
dearest. From Exh.39 letter, it appears that
daughter Ushaben was at father's house and
father-in-law was inviting the son-in-law and
grand son Mehul as there was a occasion of bride
seeing on 18.4.1993 and inviting to come at his
place with Mehul also referring that the mother-
in-law was remembering the son-in-law.
76.5 Exh.40 dated 24.8.1993 is referring to daughter
and son-in-law about maternal uncle Manubhai and
brother of Ushaben Mahendrabhai with the address
at England asking them to write letter to
brother at England.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
76.6 In the year 1992, Exh.41 dated 21.10.1992 was
addressed to daughter and son-in-law even asking
son-in-law to take care of his health. Exh.42
dated 17.7.1992 addressed to son-in-law
informing him of mother-in-law admitted in Surat
hospital. So in 1992-93, there were no issues
between the family.
76.7 In 1994-95, the daughter Ushaben appears to have
come back at parental home as it has come on
record that she wanted to stay separately. Even
immediately from 3.1.1995 to 14.5.1995, there
was no dispute, Ushaben committed suicide on
28.5.1995.
77. There is no allegation of any cruelty or
harassment in the letters of the year 1992,
1993. No any case of dowry demand, or demand of
money by the present appellants - accused no.3,
5 and 6, could be found from any of the letters
of the year 1992-93, nor there are any
allegations of any harassment by accused nos.3,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
5 and 6. The letters do not create a proximity
of time from the date of commission of suicide.
The contents of the letters since do not create
proximity, cannot be used for establishing that
present appellants perpetrated cruelty with the
deceased which led to suicide.
78. The law as explained and propounded has now been
settled. Necessary and relevant judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court are referred to understand
the position of law.
79. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 5 SCC 371, it
has been observed as under:-
"12... Even if we accept the
prosecution story that the appellant
did tell the deceased "to go and
die", that itself does not
constitute the ingredient of
"instigation". The word "instigate"
denotes incitement or urging to do
some drastic or inadvisable action
or to stimulate or incite. Presence
of mens rea, therefore, is the
necessary concomitant of
instigation. It is common knowledge
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
that the words uttered in a quarrel
or on the spur of the moment cannot
be taken to be uttered with mens
rea. It is in a fit of anger and
emotion. Secondly, the alleged
abusive words, said to have been
told to the deceased were on 25-7-
1998 ensued by a quarrel. The
deceased was found hanging on 27-7-
1998. Assuming that the deceased had
taken the abusive language
seriously, he had enough time in
between to think over and reflect
and, therefore, it cannot be said
that the abusive language, which had
been used by the appellant on 25-7-
1998 drove the deceased to commit
suicide."
79.1 In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, it
is observed that to constitute 'instigation', a
person who instigates another has to provoke,
incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by
the other by 'goading' or 'urging forward'. The
Court summed up the constituents of 'abetment'
as under:-
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the
deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
conduct which may even be a wilful silence until
the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the
deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission
or conduct to make the deceased move forward
more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke,
urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide
while acting in the manner noted above.
Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the
necessary concomitant of instigation.
79.2 In the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v.
State of Karnataka, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3541,
this Court observed that discord and differences
in domestic life are quite common in society.
Commission of suicide largely depends upon the
mental state of the victim. Until and unless
some guilty intention on the part of the accused
is established, it is ordinarily not possible to
convict the accused for an offence under Section
306 IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
79.3 Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 1020
is a case, where Court after analysing various
decisions on the point summed up the legal
position in the following manner:
"14. Section 306 read with Section
107 of IPC, has been interpreted,
time and again, and its principles
are well established. To attract the
offence of abetment to suicide, it
is important to establish proof of
direct or indirect acts of
instigation or incitement of suicide
by the accused, which must be in
close proximity to the commission of
suicide by the deceased. Such
instigation or incitement should
reveal a clear mens rea to abet the
commission of suicide and should put
the victim in such a position that
he/she would have no other option
but to commit suicide."
79.4 In the aforesaid judgment, the Court referred to
its earlier decision in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh
Sengar (supra) and held that in a given case,
even a time gap of 48 hours between using of
abusive language by the accused and the
commission of suicide would not amount to a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
proximate act.
79.5 In the case of Ude Singh v. State of Haryana,
[(2019) 17 SCC 301], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under:
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of
suicide, there must be a proof of
direct or indirect act(s) of
incitement to the commission of
suicide. It could hardly be disputed
that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context
of an offence of abetment of
suicide, remains a vexed one,
involving multifaceted and complex
attributes of human behaviour and
responses/reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide,
the court would be looking for
cogent and convincing proof of the
act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. In the case
of suicide, mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice
unless there be such action on the
part of the accused which compels
the person to commit suicide; and
such an offending action ought to be
proximate to the time of occurrence.
Whether a person has abetted in the
commission of suicide by another or
not, could only be gathered from the
facts and circumstances of each
case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out
if a person has abetted commission
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
of suicide by another, the
consideration would be if the
accused is guilty of the act of
instigation of the act of suicide.
As explained and reiterated by this
Court in the decisions above
referred, instigation means to goad,
urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had
been hypersensitive and the action
of the accused is otherwise not
ordinarily expected to induce a
similarly circumstanced person to
commit suicide, it may not be safe
to hold the accused guilty of
abetment of suicide. But, on the
other hand, if the accused by his
acts and by his continuous course of
conduct creates a situation which
leads the deceased perceiving no
other option except to commit
suicide, the case may fall within
the four-corners of Section 306 IPC.
If the accused plays an active role
in tarnishing the self-esteem and
self-respect of the victim, which
eventually draws the victim to
commit suicide, the accused may be
held guilty of abetment of suicide.
The question of mens rea on the part
of the accused in such cases would
be examined with reference to the
actual acts and deeds of the accused
and if the acts and deeds are only
of such nature where the accused
intended nothing more than
harassment or snap show of anger, a
particular case may fall short of
the offence of abetment of suicide.
However, if the accused kept on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
irritating or annoying the deceased
by words or deeds until the deceased
reacted or was provoked, a
particular case may be that of
abetment of suicide..."
79.6 In the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal
Jaiswal, [(1994) 1 SCC 73], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has cautioned in Para-17 as under:
"17. ... The Court should be extremely
careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case and the
evidence adduced in the trial for
the purpose of finding whether the
cruelty meted out to the victim had
in fact induced her to end the life
by committing suicide. If it
transpires to the Court that a
victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary
petulance, discord and differences
in domestic life quite common to the
society to which the victim belonged
and such petulance, discord and
differences were not expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to
commit suicide, the conscience of
the Court should not be satisfied
for basing a finding that the
accused charged of abetting the
offence of suicide should be found
guilty...."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
79.7 In the case of M. Mohan v. State Represented by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, [AIR 2011
SC 1238 : (2011) 3 SCC 626], the Hon'ble Apex
Court has made the following observations
regarding the ingredients of Section 306 IPC,
referring to the word 'suicide', which reads
thus:
"If the provisions for the offence
under Section 306 are considered, it
is evident that the basic ingredient
regarding the intentional
instigation are required to be
proved or established. The word
'suicide' has not been defined. The
word 'suicide' would mean the
intentional killing of oneself. As
per Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th
Edition, p.686, "A finding of
suicide must be on evidence of
intention. Every act of self
destruction is, in common language
described by the word 'suicide'
provided it is an intentional act of
a party knowing the probable
consequence of what he is about.
Suicide is never to be presumed.
Intention is the essential legal
ingredient."
79.8 In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
the essence of abetment lies in instigating a
person to do a thing or the intentional doing of
that thing by an act or illegal omission.
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. A word uttered in the fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.
79.9 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.
Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, [2010 (12) SCC
190] in regard to the abetment has held as
under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
"25. Abetment involves a mental
process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing. Without a positive
act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the
legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this Court is 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 that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he committed
suicide."
80. Exh.48 is a letter, which has been produced
through PW3 - Kiritkumar. As referred
hereinbefore, the letter refers to the decision
to purchase a flat at Rs.2,55,000/-, the
deceased Ushaben had written Exh.48 to PW3 -
Kiritkumar for his opinion. There is no mention
of any demand of money in the said document at
Exh.48.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
81. PW3 in the cross-examination has affirmed that
he has not stated in his police statement that
her father-in-law and mother-in-law had rebuked
her by saying that they would do the similar as
had happened to her sister. He also clarified
that on 10.5.1995, since the relation between
his sister and brother-in-law were harmonious,
therefore, they had come to his house for the
Shrimant ceremony.
82. In the evidence of PW3, nothing specifically
comes out against the present appellant of any
harassment or cruelty by the present appellants
to the deceased. Whatever dispute which could be
found were between the husband and wife. Even
the allegation against the parents-in-law could
not be proved on record. It is surprising that
the learned Trial Court Judge had convicted the
mother-in-law under Section 304B IPC. If the
case of dowry demand was not believed against
rest of the accused, then, there would not be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
any case to believe that the alleged harassment
under Section 306 IPC were in connection with
any demand for dowry. The evidence of the father
as well as brother - Kishor makes no reference
of any act or incident qua the appellants to
have committed any willful act or omission or
intentional aid or instigation to the deceased
to commit suicide, this Court thus is not
persuaded to invoke the presumption under
Section 113A to find the appellant guilty under
Section 306 IPC.
83. The father in the cross-examination has stated
that in the year 1991, there was settlement
between the husband and wife. Apart from
examining brother - Kishorbhai, the prosecution
has also examined Dharmishthaben Pravinbhai. She
is the second wife of Dr. Pravin who had
committed suicide. Dharmishthaben has been
declared hostile. However, in the cross-
examination, she has admitted that Pravinbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
had committed suicide and that fact was known to
her father-in-law. She also stated that there
were often letters from father-in-law asking for
money and that her husband would give reasonable
amount by way of money order or cash. It has
come on record that the complainant father had
filed a case against Dr. Pravin asking for
maintenance.
84. PW5 is Hansaben, wife of Kiritbhai. In the year
1995, she was residing at Savli. Her husband is
a Professor. She came to know about the
incident, of Ushaben committing suicide by
jumping in the well. She does not know when the
marriage had taken place between Ushaben and
accused - Govind, but she stated that it was
eight years prior to her death. She has stated
of matrimonial dispute in Ushaben's house
stating that she used to inform her that her
father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law -
Diyar, sister-in-law - Derani, sister-in-law -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
Nanand, would every week harass her by rebuking
her. Witness stated that Ushaben informed her
that she had sold away the plot and had given
money, and the rest she has left it to her fate.
She stated that she does not know the reason of
committing suicide by jumping into well. She
also clarified that she could not know from
Ushaben as to why they were harassing her. In
the cross-examination, the witness stated that
she has no occasion to visit the matrimonial
house of Ushaben. The witness evidence would not
clarify about any specification or instances of
harassment. She affirmed that in the police
statement, she has not stated that Ushaben had
informed her when she had come to her parental
house that after Diwali, they were going to stay
in the apartment and that they have purchased a
house. That she has not stated before the police
of any matrimonial discord and the fact that her
father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law
(Diyar) and Nanand rebuking her every week and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
perpetrating harassment and has also not stated
before the police that she has sold away the
flat and had given the money and for the rest,
she has left it to her fate. The evidence as
noted of this witness was first time stated in
the Court which bears no evidentiary value.
85. The evidence of this witness therefore, does not
become reliable as whatever she has stated in
the examination-in-chief has come for the very
first time since she had not given such a
statement to the police. The evidence appears to
have been added to bring the connection of the
present appellants to the harassment alleged.
Thus, by the evidence of this witness to,
nothing gets proved against the present
appellants.
86. The investigating officer - PW6 - Kishorsinh
Gagubha Vaghela who was serving as Police Sub-
Inspector on 28.5.1995 at Valsad Rural Police
Station, he had recorded Exh.24 the complaint
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
and on the basis of the complaint, he had
recorded the Accidental Death Entry no.13 of
1995, and Executive Magistrate had drawn the
inquest Panchnama of the deceased Ushaben at
Exh.21 and minor Amisha at Exh.22 in presence of
the Panchas. Exh.20 is the Panchnama of the
place of offence. He submitted that on the basis
of the statement, he found it as a visitation
offence and therefore, the Deputy Superintendent
of Police had come for examination and on that
basis, the complaint Exh.24 for the offence was
registered and he started the investigation. The
witness stated that the papers which were there
in the preliminary inquiry in connection with
the accidental death were taken along and the
statements of the concerned witnesses were
recorded. He stated that during the course of
investigation, the complainant had produced
photo copies of the letters. The accused nos.1,
2 and 3 were arrested on 28.5.1995. Accused
nos.4 and 5 were arrested on 29.5.1995 while
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
accused no.6 was on anticipatory bail. thus, her
arrest was made on 13.7.1995. He had produced
the charge-sheet in the Court. In the cross-
examination, the investigating officer was asked
to refer the Accidental Death Entry no.13 of
1995 at Exh.54 who affirmed that in the Police
Station diary, the cause of death is that she
was fed up of her illness and therefore, along
with her daughter, she had jumped into the well.
He also affirmed that in Accidental Death Entry
no.13 of 1995, Section 302 IPC was invoked.
87. The investigating officer had stated that
nothing had come on record, nor had been
disclosed during the investigation of any person
present near the deceased at the time when she
jumped into the well. When he was entrusted the
investigation, he was given the complaint which
was before the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
In Exh.24, the handwriting as a writer belongs
to him.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
88. In the cross-examination, the witness stated
that he had not inquired about the register of
marriage of Ushaben. He denied that he has not
recorded the statement of the neighbours of the
accused. He further stated that the statement of
Maganbhai Babubhai and other neighbours have not
been made a part of the charge-sheet nor they
are made the witness. He affirmed that they were
not made the witness to the charge-sheet since
they were not supporting the complainant's case.
The investigating officer stated that in the
complaint Exh.24, the complainant has not stated
that he was having the custody of the letters
written by deceased Ushaben and has affirmed
that he has not received the photo copy of the
letters. He stated that the accused Govindbhai,
Bharatbhai, Bhanuben and Maltiben are all
serving. Maltiben was a teacher at Bilimora,
while Bhanuben was serving as a teacher at
Surat. The investigating officer clarified that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
from the statement of the witnesses, the date,
month and details of harassment are not getting
clear, and further stated that there has been no
complaint against the accused at the Police
Station regarding any harassment or quarrel and
that it was the very first complaint.
89. Learned advocate Mr. Shethna has referred to the
decision in the case of Nareshkumar v. State of
Haryana, (2024) 3 SCC 573, wherein it was held
that the basic ingredient to constitute an
offence under Section 306 IPC are suicidal death
and abetment thereof. Abetment involves the
mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Thus, without a positive act on the part
of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Thus,
in order to convict a person under Section 306,
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence and mere harassment, held, cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
sufficient to hold an accused guilty of
commission of suicide. Further, it was held that
the prosecution has to prove an active act or
direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide. It was held that ingredients of mens
rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present,
but has to be visible and conspicuous.
90. Further it was held that the offending action on
the part of the accused ought to be proximate to
the time of occurrence. The word "instigation"
means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act. Therefore, if the person
who committed a suicide was hyper sensitive and
the action of the accused otherwise is not
ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
circumstance person to commit suicide, it may
not be safe to hold the accused guilty of
abetment of suicide.
91. In the said judgment of Nareshkumar (supra), it
was also noticed that mere demand of money from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
the wife or her parents for running a business
without anything more would not constitute
cruelty or harassment.
92. In Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of
Gujarat, 2025 (2) Crimes 213 SC, it has been
held that abetment to commit suicide involves a
mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without positive proximate act on part of
the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
Besides, in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit offence. The act attributed should
not only be proximate to time of suicide, but
should also be of such a nature that the
deceased was left with no alternative, but to
take drastic step of committing suicide. Until
and unless, some guilty intention on part of the
accused is established, it is ordinarily not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
possible to convict accused for an offence under
Section 306 IPC.
93. In the case of Shenbagavalli & Ors. v. Inspector
of Police, Kancheepuram District & Anr., 2025
SCC OnLine SC 987 rendered in Criminal Appeal
no.4268 and 4269 of 2024 dated 30.4.2025, it has
been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
considering Section 306 IPC that the abetment of
suicide requires proof of direct or indirect
acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Mere harassment or insulting behaviour that is
not proximate to the suicide incident does not
constitute abetment. It has been further
observed that mere allegations of harassment and
insulting behaviour made a month prior to the
suicide without proximate or continuous acts do
not constitute abetment of suicide.
94. Here in the present case, the cause of suicide
is the conversation between the husband and
wife, which had taken place on the night
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
previous to the day of suicide. The complainant
in his own complaint as well as deposition had
stated that the son-in-law i.e. deceased (A2)
and deceased daughter Ushaben had a quarrel
regarding the foetus, which she was carrying. A2
had instructed her to get it removed. The
immediate cause for suicide is the quarrel with
the husband. The postmortem report clarifies the
foetus of 8-10 weeks.
95. Prior to this incident, with the document at
Exh.48 with the deposition of the brother -
Kiritbhai Motilal - PW3 coupled with the
deposition of the father, it can be concluded
that the deceased and her husband A2 had decided
to stay separately in an apartment, Exh.48
further clarifies that the deceased had returned
back to Lilapore on 3.1.1995. The assurance was
given by the husband that he would not beat or
quarrel with her and the assurance was also
given by the husband that they would stay
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
separately in an apartment and had already
selected a flat of Rs.2,55,000/-. The said
letter Exh.48 has come from the custody of
Kiritkumar Motilal Gohil - PW3, it does not
transpire from Exh. 48 of any demand of money or
the specific demand of Rs.50,000/- from the
complainant father. The allegation of dowry
demand has been proved false by the documentary
evidence, where the accused could prove by
document Mark 'A' that the amount of Rs.25,000/-
as stated to have been given by the father was
probably used for purchase of plot in the name
of PW3 - Kiritkumar, which the witness
Kiritkumar came to know only after the incident
of suicide. So the case of any demand of money
from the husband or from any other members of
the family has not been proved.
96. Since 3.1.1995, it has been proved on record
that the relation between the husband and wife
were cordial. They had also visited the house of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
PW3 for Shrimant ceremony of PW5. Both the
husband and wife together had stayed for about
4-5 days at the parental house. There is no
allegation against the present appellants as
brother-in-law (Diyar), sister-in-law (Devrani)
and sister-in-law (Nanand) of any harassment in
the immediate past of suicide. No allegation is
made of any proximate act of cruelty of any of
the three appellants to be considered as
instigation or aid in committing suicide. The
letters which had been produced by the father at
Exhs.25 to 31 are actually not proved. Those
letters almost are of the year 1991, while the
letters from Exhs.32 to 42 shows about the
cordial relation between the father-in-law and
the son-in-law as well as with the other family
members. The letters Exhs.25 to 31 had not
proved to be in the handwriting of the deceased
Ushaben. No expert opinion was sought, though
the documents were challenged in the cross-
examination. Even if the letters are read in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
evidence, those letters do not prove the close
proximity to the date of suicide.
97. It is well established principle, while
interpreting Section 306 read with Section 107
of IPC, that it becomes important to establish
by proof of direct or indirect act of
instigation or incitement of suicide by the
accused, which may be in close proximity to the
commission of suicide by the deceased. Such
instigation or incitement should reveal a clear
mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and
that the victim was put in such a position that
she had no other option, but to commit suicide.
Here in the present case, the deceased was a
teacher with two children. She had the duty to
think of the future of both the children. They
were in a process of purchasing a new flat. The
husband was also an earning member, If at all,
she had the grudge against the husband, she had
the option to again return back to her parental
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
house.
98. There is no direct action in the form of cruelty
or harassment of the present appellant - accused
nos.3, 5, 4 and 6, to have any proximity to the
time of suicide. There is no allegation of
accused conduct, which provoked urging or
tarnishing the victim's self-esteem creating an
unbearable situation by any of the present
appellants to consider the case under Section
306 IPC. The ingredients of the offence are not
made out against the present appellants. On
assessment and evaluation of the facts and
evidence on record, this Court is of an opinion
that the learned Trial Court Judge has erred in
evaluating the evidence in accordance to the
principles of law. To satisfy the requirement of
instigation, accused by act or omission or by a
continued course of conduct, should have created
such circumstances that deceased was left with
no other option, except to commit suicide. No
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
such case was proved against the present
appellants no.3, 5 and 6.
99. Thus, to the reasons given hereinabove and in
light of the observations made, the appeal is
required to be allowed.
100. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad in
Sessions Case no.59 of 2002 (Old Sessions Case
no.119 of 1995) is hereby set aside. Bail bond
discharged. The appellants no.3, 5 and 6 are
acquitted of all the charges. Registry is
directed to send the record and proceedings back
to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik/Pankaj
