[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Ambalal Becharji Od on 10 December, 2025

                                                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/1988/2010                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

                                                                                                                      undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1988 of 2010


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

                                    Approved for Reporting                          Yes           No

                       ==========================================================
                                                        STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                              Versus
                                                    AMBALAL BECHARJI OD & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant - State
                       MR HEMANT B RAVAL(3491) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                       RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                          Date : 10/12/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

common judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.05.2010

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court

No.16, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case Nos.146 of 2009 & 367

of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A),

306, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3

and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 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/1988/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial

before the lower Court is that prior five years from the date

of incident, deceased - Tulsiben, who happened to be the

sister of the complainant, was married with accused No.5 -

Raichand Ambalal Odd and since then, the deceased was

staying with the accused persons. She had one child viz.,

Shailesh aged about 15 months. She had spent very short

time happily with accused persons as after short while, the

accused persons started causing physical and mental cruelty

to the deceased. She was insulted, humiliated and taunted by

the accused persons on the ground that she could not bring

sufficient dowry. However, they gave Rs.40,000/- and one bike

to the accused persons inspite of that their demands

increasing; and that the deceased had complained against the

accused persons, but she was persuaded by him to stay with the accused persons; and that accused No.5 - husband of the

deceased ran away with another girl and pursuant to that,

deceased Tulsiben, by frustrating, committed suicide by

pouring kerosene on her body. Therefore, the complaint was

filed against the respondent/s-accused.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1988/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

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.146 of 2009. 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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1988/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

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.

7.1 As against that, learned advocate for the

respondent/s No.1 to 4 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.

7.2 Though served, respondent No.5 has chosen not to

appear and contest this appeal before this Court.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1988/2010 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 prosecution has examined the brother of the

deceased i.e. the complainant viz., Hiralal Bhogilal Odd as

P.W.1, vide Exh.13. In his deposition, it has come on record

that at the beginning of the marriage of the deceased with

accused No.5 - Raichandbhai Ambalal, everything was hale

and hearty, but, there was certain marital discord between

the deceased and her in-laws. If the allegations made by the

complainant are considered, none of them are so grave that

the deceased has no other option but to commit suicide.

If the said deposition of P.W.1 is considered, it

has been stated that there was dowry demand by the

accused from the deceased; and that since one month,

accused No.5 i.e. husband of the deceased had run away with

another lady staying in the chawl. There are lot of

contradictions in the evidence produced by the prosecution,

more particularly, in the evidence of the brother of the

deceased. In the complaint vide Exh.14, the complainant

states that they received a call about the said incident dated

25.12.2008 from the son-in-law (' Bhatrija Jamai') of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1988/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

complainant. In the oral evidence, the complainant states

that he received an information from his son-in-law.

Moreover, in the complaint, vide Exh.14, the

complainant states that the husband of the deceased i.e.

accused No.5 had run away with another lady before one

month, and that he came to know about the said fact one

month before the date of incident and in his deposition, he

states that he came to know that accused No.5 had run

away with another lady before 15 days from the date of

incident.

8.2 If the testimony of Dr.Saumilbhai Merchant, which

has been produced vide Exh.33, who is a doctor who has

conducted the postmortem of the deceased, is taken into

consideration, from his testimony, the prosecution has proved

that the deceased died due to burn injury and the postmortem note is produced vide Exh.34 and the inquest

note is produced vide Exh.20.

8.3 The brother of the complainant - Mahendra

Bhogilal Odd has been examined as P.W.2, vide Exh.18. He

has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned

hostile.

The neighbours, who have been examined vide

Exh.22 - Ushaben Joshi (P.W.3) and vide Exh.24 - Bachubhai

Shankarbhai Rana (P.W.4), do not know about the date of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1988/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

incident; and that they also do not know that how the

incident has taken place.

Vide Exh.25, the prosecution has examined P.W.5

- Khemsing Varadsinh Rajput and from his evidence also,

nothing transpires of the offence against the accused.

The FSL documents are produced vide Exh.28 to

32. The police officer - Manjurhusain Anvarmiya Khokhar

has been examined vide Exh.26, as P.W.7.

From the entire evidence, the prosecution has

failed to prove its case.

8.4 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/1988/2010 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/1988/2010 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/1988/2010 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/1988/2010 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/1988/2010 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/1988/2010 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/1988/2010 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/1988/2010 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