[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Jayantibhai Laxmanbhai Dabhi on 10 December, 2025

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/1157/2010                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1157 of 2010


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                        Yes           No

                       ==========================================================
                                                        STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                              Versus
                                               JAYANTIBHAI LAXMANBHAI DABHI & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant - State
                       MR AMIT N CHAUDHARY(5599) for the Respondents
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                         Date : 10/12/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.05.2009 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and

Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad City in

Sessions Case No.355 of 2006 for the offences punishable

under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal

Code, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this

appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (for short, "the Code").

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial

before the lower Court is that, after the marriage span of

two years, it is alleged that mother-in-law of the deceased -

accused No.2 started mental and physical torture to the

deceased regarding house-hold chores and also in her

(decease's) illness; and that she used to insult the deceased

in public and accused No.1 was protecting such steps for her

mother; and that as and when the deceased used to visit the

parental home, she complained about it and also told that

she had no interest in life and wanted to end her life as she

was fed up from all such harassment by the accused; and

that there was a dispute regarding separation from the in-

laws and the complainant persuaded the deceased and sent

her to her matrimonial home; and that in the morning of the

day of incident, the complainant received a call asking him to come at matrimonial home of the deceased - Jayaben

immediately, therefore, when they reached there, they were

informed that Jayaben committed suicide by hanging herself

with the ceiling fan. Therefore, a complaint is lodged by the

father of the deceased - the complainant - Devjibhai

Balubhai Khandavi before the 'F' Division Police Station,

Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 306,

498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-

sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the

offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively

triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate

committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to

be registered as Sessions Case No.355 of 2006. The charge

was framed against the accused person/s. The accused

pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution

has examined the witnesses and also produced various

documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are

described in the impugned judgment.

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial

Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the

charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed

to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has

pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court

through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before

the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial

Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in

acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial

Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the

contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and

ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the

accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that

the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It

is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen

that the evidence produced on record is reliable and

believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,

therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by

appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

7. As against that, learned advocate for the

respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by

the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned

trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the

accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal

by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by

the learned trial Court.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral

as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and

dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and

order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with

the Court :

8.1 The P.W.1-Devjibhai Balubhai who has been

examined vide Exhibit-10 who is the father of the deceased

has only stated that there were matrimonial discord between

the deceased and her husband and in-laws.

He has also stated that the husband had come to

get the deceased from her paternal house. In his cross-

examination he has also deposed that during the period of

one and half years of the marriage of the deceased with the

accused husband, the deceased and her husband and the in- laws used to regularly visit the parental house of the

deceased and till the time the complaint was filed, the

deceased was harassed only for the reason forcing them to

stay separately from the in-laws.

In his deposition he has also admitted that he has

not complained in his community nor has given any

application at any police station and that during Diwali days,

the husband of the deceased had come to drop her at her

parental house and at the time when the daughter had come

to the parental house, P.W.11 was not present and thereafter,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

when he had asked the deceased as to why she had come

over to the parental house, she had stated that as the in-

laws had gone out of town, there were disputes in the house.

8.2 It has also come on record that after Diwali, the

husband of the deceased had come to get the deceased from

her parental house, and at that time, the husband was

treated cordially and at that time, the deceased had stated

that she will not go at the matrimonial house thereafter,

after 15 days, the in-laws of the deceased had come to get

her from her parental house and the deceased had gone with

her in-laws.

8.3 If the complaint produced at Exhibit 11 is taken

into consideration, the complaint is contrary to what has

been stated in the deposition by P.W.11. In the complaint vide Exhibit-11, the complainant had only stated that the

deceased was insulted at her matrimonial home.

8.4 Vide Exhibit 18, Laxmiben Devjibhai has been

examined as P.W.4, there are lot of contradiction in her

statement and the statement made by the father of the

deceased. There are contradictions to the fact that who had

called to inform about the incident of the deceased burning

herself. In her deposition, the said witness states that the

deceased had come to the parental house to take rest

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

because of her pregnancy. She has also admitted that the

deceased was of a sensitive nature.

8.5 The father of the deceased, vide Exhibit 10, states

that the in-laws had called and informed about the incident.

The mother of the deceased Laxmiben who has been

examined as P.W.4 vide Exhibit-18, states that the husband

had called and informed about the incident.

8.6 Vide Exhibit 19, the prosecution has examined

Jamnaben as P.W.5. The prosecution has examined the aunt

of the deceased Dinaben as P.W.6, vide Exhibit 20, and in

her cross-examination she has stated that during the two

years of her marriage, the deceased used to come to the

parental house in a happy state of affair and that the

deceased had never informed her of any problems that she used to face at her matrimonial home.

Vide Exhibit 21, the prosecution has examined the

P.S.I. as P.W.7, who had done the initial investigation,

thereafter, the investigation was taken over by P.W.8 who

has been examined vide Exhibit-22 and the A.C.P., who has

been examined by the prosecution as P.W.9, vide Exhibit 24.

There are lot of contradictions in the deposition of Laxmiben

and the Police statement given by Laxmiben wherein,

Laxmiben had not deposed that the deceased was also

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

harassed by her brother-in-law.

The prosecution has failed to prove as to what

kind of harassment was done by the accused on the deceased

that the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide.

There are also contradiction in the Police statement and the

oral deposition of the prosecution witness with respect to the

fact that the disputes were because the brother-in-law wanted

to buy a new house.

From the evidence of the prosecution it has also

come on record that the deceased was of a sensitive nature

and the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had

harassed the deceased to an extent that she did not have

any alternative but to commit suicide.

There are contradiction in the deposition of

Laxmiben who had been examined vide Exhibit 18, Jamnaben who has been examined vide Exhibit 19 and Dinaben who

has been examined vide Exhibit 20. In the deposition it has

been stated that the harassment was from the last six

months but what kind of harassment was there and who had

harassed the accused has not been proved by the prosecution.

8.7 If the evidence of the aunt of the deceased -

Dinaben Vaghela, who has been examined vide Exhibit 20, is

taken into consideration, she has stated that the husband of

the deceased had gone to his in-laws' house to get the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

deceased to his home i.e. the matrimonial home and as the

parents of the deceased were not present, she - deceased did

not come with the husband to a matrimonial home; and that

if the evidence of the complainant - Devjibhai, who has been

examined vide Exhibit 10 and the mother of the deceased -

Laxmiben, who has been examined vide Exhibit 18 and the

sister of the complainant - Jamnaben, who has been

examined vide Exhibit 19, are taken into consideration, in

their deposition it has been stated that the deceased did not

come with the accused - husband as the in-laws were not

present in the house.

8.8 The trial Court has rightly held that there was no

positive evidence on record to prove that the accused by way

of the conduct or spoken words, overtly or covertly, actually

aided and abetted or instigated the deceased in such a manner that it leaves no other option for the deceased but to

commit suicide.

9.1 In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of

Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

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.

9.2 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 left with no other option,

except to commit suicide.

9.3 In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

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.

9.4 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 the part of the accused which led or

compelled the person to commit suicide.

9.5 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.

10. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that

the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest

illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court

below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above

view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the Court below was completely justified in passing

impugned judgment and order.

11. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial

Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence

connecting the accused with the incident and there are

contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.

In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that

the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive

of the accused behind the incident is not established. The trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record

and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has

rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.

12. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal

appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the

judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons

assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.

Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of

State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

1417 wherein it is held as under:

                                                    "...      This       court        has      observed      in      Girija
                                                    Nandini            Devi         V.       Bigendra           Nandini
                                                    Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC
                                                    1124)       that     it    is      not      the   duty      of    the

appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

13. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the

discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.

14. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,

reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as

under:

"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same

cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged

or demolished, the High Court should not

disturb the order of acquittal."

15. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of

Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.

It is further observed that High Court's interference in such

appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by

the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court

should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the

belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have

taken a different view.

16. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,

reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

observed as under:

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.

Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1157/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to

interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

18. In view of above facts and circumstances of the

case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I

found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under

the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly

acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons

stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the

view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the