Gujarat High Court
Motibhai Masarabhai Meghval (Paregi) vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 157 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MOTIBHAI MASARABHAI MEGHVAL (PAREGI)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHETAN K PANDYA(1973) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JAY MEHTA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 25/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant -
original accused under the provisions of Section 374 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 4.1.2016 passed in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
Sessions Case No.227 of 2015 (old No.220 of 2014) by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deodar.
2. The facts shorn of unnecessary details as they
reveal from the documents are as follows :
2.1 Nagaram Pirathi Meghval - complainant lodged
the FIR with Tharad Police Station which was registered as
CR No.I-155 of 2014 for the alleged commission of offence
punishable under sections 498-A, 302, 316 and 201 of
Indian Penal Code inter alia alleging that for the last
approximately eight months before filing of the FIR, the
accused suspected character of deceased Keliben (daughter
of the complainant) at the instigation of his family members
and used to physically abused and mentally harassed the
deceased. It is further alleged that on 28.6.2014 at about
10.30 O'clock when the deceased was in her hut which is in
his field known as "Vadiya" situated in the sim of village
Bevta, the accused - present appellant gave kick blow on
the abdomen of the deceased and strangulated her and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
thereby committed the offence of culpable homicidal death.
It is the case of the complainant that at the time of her
death, the deceased was pregnant and therefore child in the
womb also expired. It is further alleged that the present
appellant - original accused tried to label the said incident
as suicidal death by hanging his wife and thereby destroyed
the evidence.
2.2 After thorough investigation, chargesheet came to
be submitted before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate,
Tharad and since the case was exclusively sessions triable,
learned Magistrate, Tharad committed the said case to the
learned Sessions Court as per the provisions of section 209
of the CrPC and the same came to be registered as Sessions
Case No.220 of 2014. However, the same came to be
renumbered as Sessions Case No.227 of 2015.
2.3 Vide Exh.4 charges were framed for the offence
punishable under sections 498-A, 302, 316 and 201 of IPC
and vide Exh.5, plea of the accused was recorded where he
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
denied the charges and prayed for trial.
2.4 To bring home the charges against the appellant
accused, the prosecution relied upon the following oral as
well as documentary evidences.
ORAL EVIDENCES :
Sr.No. Name Exh.
Dashrathbhai
3 Deposition of panch witness - Mafaram Manjibhai 14
5 Deposition of panch witness - Arjanji Juvarji 17
9 Deposition of witness - PSO Gulabsinh Chelaji 23
10 Deposition of witness - IO - Maganbhai Kalabhai 27
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES :
Sr.No. Name Exh.
4 Panchnama of physical verification of the body of 18
accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
10 Receipt for receiving dead body of Keliben by 30
guardian
2.5 Vide Exh.41, the prosecution preferred the
purshis declaring that the prosecution does not want to
examine witness any further and thus, after recording the
said closing purshis, further statement of the accused
under the provisions of section 313 of CrPC came to be
recorded and after hearing learned advocates for both the
sides, vide the impugned judgment and order convicted the
appellant - original accused as under.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
Section Sentence Fine in Rs. Default sentence
302 IPC Life Imprisonment 10,000/- 3 months SI
316 IPC 7 years RI 7000/- 2 months SI
201 IPC 5 years RI 5000/- 1 month SI
498A IPC 3 years SI 3000/- 15 days SI
Learned trial Judge also gave benefit under section 428 of
CrPC and also ordered that all the sentences be run
concurrently.
3. It is against this judgment and order of conviction
that the appellant - original accused has preferred the
present appeal.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Chetan Pandya appearing
for the appellant - original accused would contend that :
(a) That except inquest panch, none of the panch
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, more
particularly, panch witness of panchnama of physical
verification of the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
(b) That there are no eye witnesses in the present
case and entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.
However, chain of circumstances is not proved either
independently or collectively so that they point finger of guilt
towards the accused. Hence, in such circumstances,
conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge is erroneous.
(c) That PW 2 - Nagaji Piraji who is the first
informant and father of the deceased has reached at the
place of incident after he was informed and that allegations
of quarrel are against aunt of the appellant. However, this
witness does not disclose as to how he came to know that
the accused has kicked on the abdomen of his daughter.
Thus, non-disclosure of source of information by the
complainant that too also by the hearsay witness is not
helpful to the prosecution.
(d) Learned advocate has drawn attention of this
Court towards the deposition of PW 4 at Exh.16 i.e.
Chhaganji Piraji who is uncle of the deceased. Similarly, he
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
also reached at the place of incident after he was informed
and has alleged that the deceased was beaten by the
accused. However, what is the source of information has
also not come on record. Therefore, allegations of beating
are not proved.
(e) Chenaram Piraji PW 7 who is also uncle of the
deceased has similarly reached at the place of incident only
after he was informed. However, this witness does not
disclose any information with regard to harassment while
the deceased visited his home. However, according to him,
the deceased was beaten and hanged, but does not disclose
as to how this fact came to his knowledge.
(f) That Pankhiben Nagaram - PW 8 who is the
mother of the deceased also reached at the place of incident
after having been informed. However, she also does not
disclose about any harassment while the deceased was
visiting her maternal home. She in her deposition states
that she came to know about strangulation of daughter and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
having been killed from others.
(g) Learned advocate for the appellant has further
drawn attention of this Court towards the deposition of
independent witness i.e. PW 6 - Maviben Lasaji who is land
owner where the deceased was residing in hut. However,
she has turned hostile and despite having been cross
examined by the Public Prosecutor has not supported the
prosecution case.
(h) Learned advocate for the appellant has further
argued that on going through the deposition of
Dr.Bhavinkumar - PW 1 though postmortem note is proved
and exhibited at Exh.8, however, cause of death was kept
pending and as per Exh.28, letter was addressed by the
Medical Officer of Referral Hospital to the Police Sub
Inspector of Tharad Police Station informing "we are not
able to give final cause of death". In such circumstances,
whether the death was homicidal, accidental or culpable
homicidal is not proved.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
(i) Lastly, it is argued that police witnesses are
formal witnesses. However, learned trial Judge relied upon
such witnesses as contended by the present appellant.
Under such circumstances, the prosecution having failed to
prove the entire chain of circumstances and also the nature
of death of the deceased and also failure on their part to
prove cruelty meted out by the appellant has argued to
allow the present appeal.
5. Learned APP Mr.Jay Mehta has argued that
relying upon the evidence on record, learned trial Court has
recorded the findings and has given sound and well
reasoned judgment by analyzing the oral as well as
documentary evidences in its proper perspective, more
particularly, in paragraphs 28 to 30 and has convicted the
appellant and has argued to reject the appeal.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective
parties. We have gone through the Record and Proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
of the case as well as impugned judgment.
7. We have also perused the oral as well as
documentary evidences led by the prosecution before the
learned trial Court.
Analysis of the witnesses examined by the prosecution :
8, PW 2 - Nagaji Piraji - complainant (father of the
deceased). At the outset, it is required to be noted that none
of the witnesses have been cross examined at length.
However, on perusing the examination-in-chief, this witness
has stated that:
"I have two sons and five daughters. Out of
which, eldest is Keliben. She was married six
years back with Motiji, resident of village Bevta.
They are having one daughter and one son. She
used to stay together with family. She came to
meet me 15 days back. Whenever Keliben came to
meet me, she used to inform that her aunt-in-law
and one other used to scold them. Except this,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
nothing was done to her. The incident took place
12 months before where I was at my residence.
That father-in-law of my daughter informed me
that Keliben has been killed. At that time, I had
gone to Bevta at 4.00 O'clock. Keliben was inside
the hut and was pregnant. She died because she
was kicked. She was lifted and an attempt was
made to hang her. In this regard, I had lodged
the complaint before the Tharad Police Station. I
have been shown mark 3/2 which is original
complaint and is bearing my thumb impression
which is produced and exhibited at Exh.10."
From the deposition of this witness, it is clear
that even if some cruelty was meted out, it was by the
maternal aunt of the accused and someone else. The
deposition does not disclose any mental or physical
harassment by any of the family members of the deceased
since what is stated is "Bola Chali". However, as to who
kicked the deceased is not coming forth from the evidence of
this witness nor the source from where he came to know is
coming on record, more particularly, when he was at his
residence. In such circumstances, coupled with the fat that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
this witness himself has stated that her daughter used to
stay with the family members together. However, on perusal
of Exh.10 - complaint, it is stated that uncle and aunt of
the accused used to stay beside the residence of the
accused and that daughter, son, father, mother, accused
and his deceased wife used to stay together in joint family.
9. PW 3 - Mafaram Manjibhai Meghval is the panch
of inquest panchnama. On going through the deposition of
this witness, he has stated that on 29.6.2014 when he was
present at the Government hospital, one dead body of lady
came to the hospital which was injured on leg, thigh and
stomach with marks and her name was Keliben for which
panchnama was prepared and I had put thumb impression.
However, in the cross examination, he has admitted that for
what purpose, he has put thumb impression is not known
to him. Such inquest panchnama was exhibited at Exh.15.
However, this panchnama does not take forward the case of
the prosecution except for the fact of status of dead body
since no belongings were recovered from the dead body.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
10. PW 4 - Chhaganji Piraji Meghval is the uncle of
the deceased. He has deposed to the effect that :
"we are five brothers. I have four sons and two
daughters. My eldest daughter Keliben was
married to the son of Mashabhai Vaghaji i.e.
Motibhai at village Bevta six years back. She
used to live with her son and daughter. The
incident took place almost 14 months back. On
the day of incident, they came at 5.00 O'clock
from Achalpur. From Achalpur, they went to
Bevta. There were number of people along with
him. We had gone to the farm of Patel at Bevta.
There was one four feet high otla. Keli had
erected one hut in the said field where I had seen
Keli and was lying dead. Moti had killed Keli.
The police had taken my statement. I know the
accused."
In the cross examination, this witness has admitted that he
has not seen the incident happening with his eye. From the
deposition of this witness, how did he come to know that
the deceased was killed by Moti is not coming on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
Thus, what is source of information or how did he come to
know regarding murder of the deceased having been
committed by the present accused is not proved. The factum
of cruelty is also not proved from the deposition of this
witness.
11. PW 5 - Arjanji Juvarji has been examined at
Exh.17. This witness is the panch of place of incident and
physical verification of the person of the accused and
recovery of clothes of the accused at the time of arrest.
However, this panch has not supported the case of the
prosecution and has merely identified the signature. Thus,
this witness does not take forward the case of the
prosecution any further. Though the panchnama of the
place of incident is at Exh.18 and that of the physical
verification of the person of the accused is at Exh.19, the
contents thereof are not proved.
12. PW 6 - Maviben Lasaji Patel has been examined
at Exh.20 who is the owner of the land where the deceased
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
used to stay by erecting hut. This witness has also not
supported the case of the prosecution and has turned
hostile. She does not utter a single word with regard to the
alleged incident of the appellant kicking on the abdomen of
the deceased and that of meted out any cruelty to her either
by the accused or family members of the accused.
13. PW 7 - Chenaram Piraji Meghval has been
examined at Exh.7 who is the uncle of the deceased. The
witness has deposed to the effect that :
"we are five brothers, eldest is Chhaganram, then
myself and younger brother than me is Nagaram.
We all residing separately. My brother Nagaram
is having two sons and five daughters. The eldest
daughter being Kedi who was married with the
son of Masarabhai Vaghaji i.e. Motibhai. Out of
this wedlock, Kedi has one son and one daughter.
Whenever she used to come to our house, she did
not inform anything to us. I was informed with
regard to the incident by Raghunath on telephone
and therefore, I along with my brother had gone
there and on seeing, Keli was lying in the hut and
was dead. As per my say, Keli was killed and was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
hanged. The police has recorded my statement
and I know the accused."
On going through the entire examination-in-chief,
this witness does not disclose as to how he came to know
that the deceased was murdered and then hanged. This
witness also does not speak a single word with regard to
any cruelty meted out to the deceased by any of the
members including the present accused.
14. PW 8 - Pankhiben Nagaram has been examined
at Exh.22 who is the mother of the deceased. She has
deposed to the effect that :
"I have five daughters. Keli is the eldest. Six
years before she was married to the son of
Masarabhai Vaghaji i.e. Motibhai. Keli has two
issues, one son and one daughter and at the time
of incident, she was pregnant. My daughter
frequently used to visit us. When she used to
come our residence, she did not complain.
Chenaram had informed with regard to the
incident and therefore, along with husband and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
other family members, we had gone to village
Bevta. No one has informed us anything. We
came to know from word to mouth that my
daughter has committed suicide. That my
daughter was responsible person. She has been
killed by beating her. The police has taken my
statement. I know the accused."
Even from the entire deposition of this witness,
how did she come to know about the factum of accused
having been injured and killed is not coming on record. As
far as allegation of cruelty is concerned, not a single word
has been uttered by this witness. Thus, mother of the
deceased is also not aware as to how the incident has taken
place nor does she has source of information nor does she
discloses the factum of any cruelty meted out by any of the
family members including the present accused.
15. PW 9 - Gulabsinh Chelaji has been examined at
Eh.23. The witness is PSO who has registered the FIR. His
entire deposition is formal in nature and has not been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
discussed hereinafter.
16. One of the important aspects which reflects from
the judgment itself, more particularly, from paragraphs 28
and 29 is that learned trial Court has given findings to the
effect that vide Exh.9, the complainant has been examined
who has stated that she was married six years back and
that incident took place one year back and she used to
reside in joint family. That she has come to meet 15 days
back and at that time, she had informed that aunt of the
deceased and one other used to quarrel with her and thus,
has given finding to the effect that the deceased was meted
out with cruelty. It is pertinent to note that aunt of the
accused is not the accused in the present case and that the
prosecution has not given any application to join her as
accused. Even otherwise, if the deposition is taken as it is, it
does not bring on record any cruelty meted out to the
deceased by the aunt also since merely scolding would not
amount to cruelty to the deceased. Learned trial Court has
further recorded the findings that when one woman is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
murdered by the husband, it is to be presumed that relation
between them are strained. This assumption cannot stand
for a moment because what is to be proved by the
prosecution is the case beyond reasonable doubt. A judge
cannot merely convict the accused without there being any
legal evidence on record based on morality, ethics or
assumption. If the impugned judgment is further read, it
clearly transpires that similarly relying upon various
depositions, more particularly, Exh.9 that of the
complainant, Exh.16 that of Chhaganji, Exh.22 that of
Pankhiben, the mother of the deceased has given the
findings to the effect that Keliben was murdered by the
present accused. However, as noted hereinabove, even if
the depositions of all the witnesses are taken as it is, not a
single witness has been able to bring on record as to how
the deceased was murdered. Under such circumstances,
the findings given by the learned trial Court are perverse.
17. Learned trial Court has further stated in
paragraph 29 of the impugned judgment that vide Exh.20,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
Maviben has been examined and though she has turned
hostile has further recorded in the reasoning to the effect
that vide Exh.27, the Investigating Officer - Maganbhai
Kalabhai has been examined who has recorded the
statement of Maviben and has stated in his deposition as to
what Maviben had stated to this Investigating Officer under
the provisions of section 161 of CrPC and based on such
evidence, learned trial Court has convicted the present
accused.
18. At this juncture, in the judgment in the case of
Renuka Prasad vs The State Represented by Assistant
Superintendent of Police, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1074, the Honourable Apex Court clarified that the
testimony of investigating officers (Ios) regarding witness
statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC) is inadmissible as evidence in Court.
The Court highlighted that statements made by witnesses to
police officers during investigation under section 161 CrPC
have no evidentiary value in Court unless the witnesses
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
themselves confirm these statements during the trial. In
the said case, a significant number of witnesses, including
the crucial eyewitnesses, turned hostile, denying their
earlier statements made before the IO under provisions of
Section 161 CrPC. The Supreme Court noted that the
prosecution's attempt to rely on the investigating officer's
version of these statements was a clear violation of Section
162 CrPC. The Apex Court emphasized that the IO's
testimony, which merely repeated the Section 161
statements of witnesses, could not be treated as credible
evidence. The Court stated : "Merely because the Ios spoke
of such statements having been made by the witnesses
during investigation, does not give them any credibility,
enabling acceptance, unless the witnesses themselves spoke
of such motive or acts of commission or omission.....". The
Supreme court reiterated the legal principle that statements
recorded under Section 161 CrPC are only meant to assist
in investigation and cannot be used as substantive
evidence. Such statements may only be used to contradict
a witness during trial, as per Section 162 CrPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
19. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles and as
noted hereinabove, when none of the witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution, findings recorded by
learned trial Court with regard to sections 498-A, 316, 302
and 201 of IPC are clearly not tenable, more particularly,
keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, the statement
recorded under section 161 of CrPC during investigation
cannot be used as substantive piece of evidence, but can
only be used to contradict the witnesses during the trial as
per the provisions of section 162 of CrPC. Any conviction
based on the statement having been made by the
Investigating Officer recorded by him under section 161 of
CrPC cannot be relied upon to bring home the charge.
When the learned trial Court has handed down the
conviction based on such deposition of the Investigating
Officer, the same cannot be sustained.
20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and reasons, the present appeal succeeds and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/157/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
the same is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 4.1.2016 passed in Sessions
Case No.227 of 2015 (old No.220 of 2014) by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Deodar is quashed and set
aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled
against him. If the appellant is in custody, be released
forthwith and if on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled. R &
P, if any, be sent back forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
H.M. PATHAN
