Gujarat High Court
Ramilaben Jagdischandra Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 11 August, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1766 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
RAMILABEN JAGDISCHANDRA PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAD BUCH with MR SAGAR J SHAH(9447) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ROHANKUMAR RAVAL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 11/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The trial, as Sessions Case No.59 of 2004 was against
six of the accused. By the judgment dated 02.08.2005
passed the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.7, Ahmedabad convicted accused No.3-Ramilaben
Jagdischandra Patel for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for a
period of one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
default of payment of fine to undergo further
imprisonment of six months. The accused was given
the benefit of set-off.
2. The appellant accused-Ramilaben Jagdischandra Patel
is the sister-in-law (jethani) of deceased-Shilpa.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of trial
Court Judge, has filed the present Appeal.
3. The trial which was conducted against six of the
accused was under Sections 498A, 306 read with
Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). All the
appellants, except the present appellant were given the
benefit of doubt and were acquitted. The present
appellant was acquitted from the charge under Section
306 read with Section 114 of the IPC.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nirad Buch appearing with
learned advocate Mr. Sagar J. Shah appearing for the
appellant. Learned advocate Mr. Nirad Buch relying
upon the chronology of the events submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
conviction of the present appellant is merely on the
assumption, while no allegation against her has been
proved during the trial. It is submitted that the very
evidence which was against the co-accused was found
to be doubtful and unreliable and the co-accused were
acquitted and on those evidence, conviction has been
made. While only on assumption against the present
appellant as the elder daughter-in-law as that the
sister-in-law remains at home and could have asked
the deceased to do household work, and on
assumption drawn that appellant was even asking for
the salary amount had convicted apellant. It is also
submitted that such allegations are to be proved by
explicit and cogent evidence, mere assumption cannot
take place of proof. It is also submitted that if the
present appellant had been taking away the money of
the deceased, then certainly deceased would have
made such a complaint to her own husband or her
parents and at the relevant time, would have put her
foot down to resist the same. However, nothing is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
coming on record, rather the evidence shows that she
was working at Sterling Hospital and was appointed as
a permanent nurse on 29.01.2002, the marriage
between the deceased and the accused No.1 was
performed on 01.08.1997. From 07.09.1997 to
06.09.2000, she was staying in a hostel at the V.S.
Hospital for her nursing course. Thus, during this
period, she had no scope to stay with the family
members in a joint family.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Nirad Buch further stated that
from the time between 2001 to 2002, she was a trainee
and the accident took place on 07.02.2003, where
initially an Accident Death Case No.5 of 2003 was
registered and the investigation was conducted under
Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred in to short as 'Cr.PC'), which was
registered by ASI-Dhanjibhai of Meghaninagar Police
Station. It is further submitted that the important
witness in the matter is ASI-Dhanjibhai who could
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
have thrown light on the initial statement of the family
members of the deceased, but he has not been
examined.
6. It is further submitted that PW8-Bhikendrasinh
Pratapsinh Chauhan, the Police Sub-Inspector of
Jhalod Police Station had carried out the preliminary
investigation dated 09.02.2003 and his deposition
would clarify that the statements of Kailashben
Rameshbhai Parshottambhai, Rameshbhai
Parshottambhai and Krishnaben Kantilal were
recorded, and all the statements on 08.02.2003 do not
reflect the commission of such alleged offences.
Further, no statement was recorded at Sterling
Hospital, and the statement on 08.02.2003 of the
brother of the deceased, who is the complainant in the
present matter was also recorded, and in that
statement, the brother has stated of no harassment to
his sister-Shilpa from her in-laws and during the four
years of marriage, she had never complained against
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
her in-laws. The statement of PW6-father of the
deceased-Tribhovanbhai Becharbhai was recorded on
07.02.2003, and the father also had stated of no
harassment to his daughter from the in-laws. The
father has stated that the incident had taken place, as
the deceased had fallen down, and he has very
categorically put his statement that after marriage, the
in-laws behaved well with his daughter and the
daughter had never made a complaint to him.
7. There is a delay of 3 days in filing complaint which in
this case, learned advocate Mr. Nirad Buch submitted
that, it becomes fatal, as the allegations are of
poisoning and dowry demand. The delay of three days
would be sufficient to infer that a false case has been
forged against the accused, so were made to
compulsorily face the trial. It is submitted that the
allegations are vague in nature and in a general form.
The typed copy of the complaint on 10.02.2003 would
itself suggest that it is a legally advice complaint, and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
the fact of the matter which has come on record, would
bring forth the reliability of the statement recorded by
the police after the accidental case report, where the
mother in her deposition has stated that they did not
want to file a complaint, but it was filed after a quarrel
which occurred on the third day. It is further
submitted that it is strange to note that the daughter
had come for a community marriage on 06.02.2003
and that there is a statement of demand of
Rs.1,00,000/- and there are allegations that the
daughter was carrying Rs.25,000/-, but it was not
proved of any such demand made by any of the in-
laws, and the money given to the daughter herself was
never received by any member of the in-laws. If at all
the money would have been given, then that might
have been disclosed during investigation which could
have been recovered, while there was no necessity for
the daughter even to ask for the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- as she was herself an earning member.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
8. Learned advocate Mr. Nirad Buch submitted that the
allegations against the present appellant of forcing
taking salary from the deceased are not proved. The
bank account statement could have been produced to
show the withdrawal of money from her salary account
which could have given some corroboration to the
allegations. It is submitted that the learned trial Court
Judge has erred in not considering that evidence, and
has only on the general allegations that the sister-in-
law was continuously harassing her without any
specific details of harassment convicted the appellant,
which learned advocate Mr. Nirad Buch stated is
erroneous and bad in law.
9. To substantiate his submissions, learned advocate Mr.
Nirad Buch for the appellant has relied on the
following decisions of this Court :-
(a) Indrasingh M. Raol v. State of Gujarat reported in
1999 LawSuit (Guj) 346;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
(b)Shardaben, Daughter of Ishwarlal Bhogilal v. State
of Gujarat reported in 2025 AIJEL_HC 251077;
(c) Patel Rameshbhai Prabhudas v. State of Gujarat
reported in 2025 JX (Guj) 968 and;
(d)The decision dated 21.10.2022 of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in
Criminal Application No.40 of 2021 (Sarang Diwakar
Amle and Others v. State of Maharashtra and
Another).
10. Countering the above arguments, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohankumar Raval took the
Court to the charges which has been framed and
submitted that the death was by consuming of poison
or by forcible consumption of poison. It is further
stated that under Section 306 of the IPC, all the
accused have received benefit of doubt. However, the
evidence has come on record of constant harassment
by the sister-in-law. It is further submitted that the
brother-Bharatbhai Tribhovandas Patel has filed a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
complaint at Exhibit 35 on 10.02.2003 where he has
referred to the fact that the marriage span was of four
years and the deceased was staying in a joint family
alongwith all the parents-in-law as well as the elder
brother-in-law and sister-in-law. The deceased was
serving as a nurse in Sterling Hospital and she had
completed a nursing course at V.S. Hospital. As per
the community customs, gifts and dowry had been
given.
11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronakkumar
Raval has submitted that from the very beginning, the
daughter was suffering mental and physical
harassment because of the dowry demand, and as she
was working, her salary was extorted, she used to
often complain against all the family members. When
the daughter had gone to the parental house on
06.02.2003 for attending the community marriage, at
that time, she had informed her parents that her
parents-in-law are interested in purchasing a house
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
and had asked her to demand Rs.1,00,000/-. Since
the parents-in-law could not make arrangements of
Rs.1,00,000/-, they had given Rs.25,000/- and the
daughter had gone on 07.02.2003 with the money. On
that day at about 8.30-9.00 p.m., they received a call
from the father-in-law about the daughter-Shilpa being
serious and when they visited the Civil Hospital, they
found her dead in the ward.
12. Learned APP Mr. Ronakumar Raval submitted that the
delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) should
not be considered as grave since in such a family
matter, the parents would certainly be in shock and
the delay thus, has to be considered in that aspect.
Learned APP has also referred to the evidence of all the
witnesses, i.e. the brother, mother and father of the
deceased to bring to the notice of this Court, the
evidence recorded against the present appellant.
Learned APP has further submitted that the appellant
as a sister-in-law was continuously harassing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
deceased for domestic work and she used to take away
the salary of the deceased which itself is proven fact on
record and therefore, submitted that the Appeal should
be dismissed and the conviction be upheld.
13. Having heard the respective submissions canvassed
and on perusing the records of the case, it transpires
that learned trial Court Judge while acquitting all the
other co-accused, had convicted the elder sister-in-
law-appellant with the following observations :-
"Whereas, as discussed hereinabove the only person against
whom there is a consistent story that has come right from the
complaint as well as in the deposition of all the three witnesses
is the cruelty perpetrated by the sister-in-law who would be
most of the time at home and who would be also competing
with the lady who was working outside and therefore, against
her there is a consistent story of cruelty by taunting and
demand of the work and of her salary. As regards, the
demand of money from the parents, although that is not
directly attributed to her demand, but can be attributed to her
as an inevitable step on account of her cruelty as that has led
her to demand the said amount from the parents so as to have
a separate house from that of her sister-in-law and therefore, it
is not only the evidence of cruelty once or twice but continuous
for the entire period she lived at her in-law and that would hold
her guilty u/s.498-A of I.P.C. and therefore, she should be held
guilty for the said offence whereas, the rest of them are needed
to be given the benefit of doubt.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
14. The learned trial Court Judge has found a consistent
story against the appellant, observing that from the
very beginning, supported by the deposition of the
three witnesses, the cruelty was perpetrated by the
sister-in-law who would be most of the time at home
and would be competing with a lady who was working
outside and therefore, found the case of cruelty of
continuous demand of work and salary.
15. The learned Judge in the judgment itself has noted
that the amount of withdrawal has not been brought
on record, while the allegations against the present
appellant is of demand of salary. Admittedly, the
deceased was appointed as a permanent nurse at
Sterling Hospital and the date of her appointment as a
permanent nurse was 29.08.2002, the salary amount
would be deposited in her salary account. The fact
which was required to be proved is that the money was
being withdrawn by the deceased herself to give to the
present appellant on her demand. The specific
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
allegation of demanding the salary amount was
required to be proved by evidence. The available
evidence which could have been procured easily by the
prosecution / investigating officer from the bank would
be salary statement of the Sterling Hospital. The fact
that has also come on record is that from 07.09.1997
to 06.09.2000, the deceased was undergoing a nursing
course at V.S. Hospital. Mere allegations without any
explicit evidence to prove the case of continuous
harassment could not be said to be proved, unless
such form of harassment would fall in the definition of
cruelty as provided under Section 498A of the IPC.
16. The deposition which has been recorded of the brother
of the deceased-PW2-the complainant, has observed
that the deceased whenever she used to come she
would tell them that her salary was being taken away
by her in-laws. This set of evidence has not been
believed, against the other co-accused where the
complainant has specifically stated that the salary was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
being taken away by all the in-laws, and the husband
of the deceased used to beat her. These allegations
against the husband were also not believed by the trial
Court, while the allegations qua the present appellant
is that there was much harassment of the sister-in-law
further clarifying that there was harassment of all of
them. The brother has not clarified as to what type of
harassment was perpetrated by the present appellant.
Further, allegations is that though she was going for
work, the deceased had to do more work at home.
Such kind of allegations would not fall within the
definition of cruelty as the deceased being a married
woman, she was expected to do domestic work. She
was a working woman and she had all the scope to live
separately. The case of the brother is that she wanted
to live separately and that has been observed by the
learned trial Court Judge. It cannot be said that the
deceased would not be so that the deceased had no
other alternative but to commit suicide. The willful
conduct of the matrimonial family members had to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
proved and should have been established with regard
to the nature of harassment which had caused her to
commit suicide or by proving the harassment to her
that had forced her to succumb to the unlawful
demand or the failure to meet such demand. Such
story of demand of dowry has not believed by the
learned trial Court Judge.
17. The case of poisoning has not been proven on record.
The FSL Report did not show any specific substance.
The cause of death after pathological examination was
due to sudden cardiac arrest. A perusal of the FSL
Report shows that there was no presence of any
chemical / poisonous substance in the liquid. The
sample did not find the presence of sodium chloride.
The FSL Report further clarifies, in the conclusion that
the evidence found no presence of any poisonous
chemical and the death was attributed to 'cardiac
arrest'.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
18. Before PW5-mother-Ishaben, the daughter has stated
that she was facing much harassment from the sister-
in-law and that after her duty, appellant would not
allow her to sleep and that the sister-in-law would take
away her salary. This fact, as observed hereinabove,
has not been proved by the salary statement, nor by
the statement by concerned persons at work place
before whom the deceased might have raised a
grievance or any friend with whom she had shared the
pain.
19. The mother of the deceased further clarifies that they
had sent their daughter to her matrimonial home only
after she had started her job at the V.S. Hospital. The
mother also did not enquire from her daughter as to
who had demanded the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The
contradiction that has been brought on record is by
way of evidence of PW9- Dilipsinh Pratapsinh Chavda
who had made an enquiry with regard to the
Accidental Death Case No.5 of 2003 recorded on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
09.02.2003 and the complaint, i.e. C.R. No.29 of 2003
dated 10.02.2003. The investigating officer in his cross
examination, which has been brought on record,
stated that the mother of the deceased had not stated
in her statement that the sister-in-law would not allow
her to sleep after her night duties. It is not stated in
the statement that the sister-in-law would take away
her salary from her. From the cross examination of
the Investigating Officer, it transpires that the bank
statement of ICICI Bank of the deceased-Shilpa, has
not been made part of the charge-sheet. The
withdrawal of the money from the ICICI Bank through
an ATM Card has been noted in the cross examination
of the Investigating Officer however the statement of
employees of Sterling Hospital were not supporting the
prosecution case and therefore, had right not been
made a part of the charge-sheet.
20. The observations against the present appellant in the
impugned judgment as sister-in-law has not been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
made on the basis of appreciation of evidence. The
learned trial Court Judge has erred by not entering
into detailed appreciation of evidence prior to making a
conclusion against the appellant. The case against the
appellant was required to be assessed independently.
The statement of all the witnesses before PW8-
Bhikendrasinh Pratapsinh Chauhan who had done the
investigation of the accidental death report shows that
no allegations was made against any of the accused.
The delay of three days in filing complaint though may
not be considered as serious as the members of family
may be in shock due to death of daughter. Still the
complaint lacks truth and the cause of death was
obvious of cardiac arrest. The family members then
were required to be made a statement before the police
immediately, where they had an opportunity to give
their statement in connection with the Accidental
Death Report. As noticed nothing was against any of
the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
21. The observations of the learned trial Court Judge for
convicting the present appellant does not get proven by
the evidence of any of the witnesses. Nothing could be
shown of any cruelty by the appellant (sister-in-law) of
her taking away the salary of the deceased. The
appellant may be asking the deceased to do the
household work, but that itself cannot be considered
as any kind of cruelty as that would be expected from
all the daughters-in-law to do the domestic chores.
The prosecution has failed to prove any willful conduct
from the side of the present appellant to be considered
as an act to drive the women to commit suicide or to
cause grievous injury, mental or physical. It is not
every word or act hurting the deceased would fall
within the definition of 'cruelty' or the parameters fixed
under Section 498A of IPC. As observed hereinabove,
the grudge or discord would be for domestic work and
such quarrels are common in domestic life. Unless
and until, there is some cruel intention on part of the
accused, it could not be considered as cruelty as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
defined under Section 498A of the IPC. The demand
for money as dowry has not been proved; the demand
of salary by the appellant has not been proved. The
police has very specifically stated that the mother has
not given any such statement earlier, thus it was for
the first time stated by the mother in the Court. All
the witnesses have given two contradictory statements
one during the inquiry under the accidental death
report and statement in connection to the present FIR.
The allegations of cruelty must be of grave nature and
should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
22. In view of the observations made hereinabove and
appreciation of evidence, this Court is of the view that
the learned trial Court Judge has erred in convicting
the appellant. No evidence has been proved against
the appellant to bring her case within Section 498A of
IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1766/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
23. Hence, the present Appeal is allowed. The judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 02.08.2005 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7,
Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.59 of 2004 is set
aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges
levelled against her. Bail and bail bond stands
discharged. The amount of fine paid, if any, be
refunded to the appellant herein. Record and
proceedings, be sent to the concerned trial Court
forthwith.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE / DB # 6
