[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Chaudhary Pravinbhai Lavjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 3 December, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2291 of 2008
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2756 of 2008
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2757 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
CHAUDHARY PRAVINBHAI LAVJIBHAI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DK CHAUDHARI(5361) for the Appellant(s) No. 2
MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Criminal Appeal No.2291 of 2008
is by the accused challenging the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the Special
Judge, Patan on 29.08.2008 in Special Atrocity
Case No.24 of 2007. The proceeding was under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and
Section 3(i)(x)(xi) of the of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Atrocities
Act"). Accused No.1 came to be convicted under
Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506(2). While accused
No.2 was convicted under Sections 498A, 323, 504
read with Section 114 of the I.P.C.
1.1 During the pendency of the appeal accused
No.1 - Chaudhary Pravinbhai Lavjibhai, husband of
the complainant died, therefore, his name was
deleted from the cause title of all three appeals
and the matters stood abated against him.
1.2 Criminal Appeal No.2756 of 2008 filed by the
State challenges the order of acquittal for the
offence punishable under Section 3(i)(x) and (xi)
of the Atrocities Act making a prayer to set
aside the acquittal. While Criminal Appeal
No.2757 of 2008 by the State is with a prayer to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
enhance the sentence in the conviction judgment.
3. The appellant as accused No.2 - Chaudhary
Rajiben Wife of Lavjibhai Bababhai and as mother-
in-law of complainant, was sentenced for three
months simple imprisonment for the offence under
Section 498A read with Section 114 of I.P.C. and
ordered to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default
of payment of fine further seven days simple
imprisonment. For the offence under Section 323
read with Section 114 I.P.C., the fine of
Rs.300/- was ordered with default stipulation of
undergoing seven days simple imprisonment in
failure to pay the fine. Similar order was passed
I.P.C. of Rs.300/- fine and in failure to serve
seven days simple imprisonment.
3.1 The endorsement on record by the
Superintendent of Sessions Court, Patan shows
that both the accused had paid the fine amount.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
Rs.900/- was received from the present appellant
by receipt No.45 on 29.08.2008.
4. Learned advocate Mr.D.K. Chaudhari submitted
that since the appellant No.1 is no more, the
case would now has to be analysed only for the
purpose of appellant No.2 - mother-in-law of the
complainant. Advocate Mr. Chaudhari for the
appellants stated that the complaint itself would
suggests that at no point of time, the
complainant had stayed with mother-in-law. The
allegations on the face of record qua the present
appellant as mother-in-law stands proved as
false, inspite of that, learned Trial Court Judge
has failed to consider the same in favour of the
present appellant-accused.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari submitted
that the case has been made grave just because of
the fact that the complainant belongs to a
community, which falls under the Atrocities Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
4.2 Advocate Mr. Chaudhari further stated that
the complaint does not appear to have been
independently filed, as the family members and
President of the caste appears to have filed the
complaint. Advocate Mr. Chaudhari stated that
deposition of the witness as of A.S.I. clarifies
that the complaint was dictated by Ambalal
Tabhani, the President of the community.
4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari stated that
it was a love marriage and the marriage was
registered at Surat. The complainant and deceased
appellant both were staying together. Out of
their matrimonial life, they have two daughters,
and the fact appears to have been got up since
the settlement could not be arrived at. Advocate
Mr. Chaudhari stated that the complainant was
staying in Nari Suraksha Gruh at Ranuj and till
that period and thereafter too, there was no
occasion for the complainant to stay with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
mother-in-law.
4.4 Advocate Mr. Chaudhari submitted that as
per his instruction at present the complainant
along with two daughters is with mother-in-law.
Mr. Chaudhari stated that none of the sections
would get invoked against the present appellant
and the complaint is misuse of law absolutely
against the mother-in-law.
5. Countering the arguments, learned APP Ms.
Jyoti Bhatt submitted that the complaint suggests
that after staying in the Nari Suraksha Gruh, the
complainant had gone to the house of the
appellant at Ranuj Chaudhary Vas; at that time,
mother-in-law was present there and verbally
abused her by passing casteist remarks, and
beaten her by fisticuffs, and had asked her to
leave the house. Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted
that remarks were lowering the dignity of the
complainant therefore, the sentence which has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
been passed appears to be insufficient to the
facts of the matter.
5.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that
Section 3(i)(x) had been applied in the matter
since the complainant was humiliated by her caste
within the public view and she was also assaulted
and assault was with the intent to dishonour her
being member of the Scheduled Caste, she had no
option thereafter but to go to Mahila Suraksha
Centre and take the assistance of the community
representative, with whose support she could file
the complaint. APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that the
case could not be considered as falsely drawn
against the appellant.
6. Having heard the arguments canvassed by
learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari for the appellant-
accused and learned APP Ms. Bhatt for the
appellant State in the above referred captioned
matters, the case remains to be examined for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
appellant as mother-in-law. Section 3(i)(x) and
Section (xi) of the Atrocities Act is reproduced
hereunder for ready reference:
"3(1)(x) Intentionally insults or
intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view.
(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or
outrage her modesty."
7. Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act intends
to protect members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in case where they are
intentionally insulted or intimidated with the
intent to humiliate them in any case within the
public view.
8. In background of the arguments and the facts
and evidence, the examination would be for the
view point as to whether the offence has been
committed in a place within public view, as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
contemplated under the Atrocities Act.
8.1 The legal position with regard to the
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities
Act has been dealt with in the case of Swaran
Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435. In the said
case, the distinction has been made between the
expression "public place" and "in any place
within public view". It was held that if the
offence is committed outside the building i.e. in
a lawn outside the house and the lawn can be seen
by someone from the road outside the boundary
wall, then, the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view, while if any remark is
made inside the building, but some members of the
public are there, who are not merely relatives or
friends, then it would be an offence since it is
in public view.
8.2 In the case of Swaran Singh (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
"27. Learned counsel then contended
that the alleged act was not committed
in a public place and hence does not
come within the purview of Section 3(1)
(x) of the Act. In this connection it
may be noted that the aforesaid
provision does not use the expression
`public place', but instead the
expression used is `in any place within
public view'. In our opinion there is a
clear distinction between the two
expressions.
28. It has been alleged in the FIR
that Vinod Nagar, the first informant,
was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by
calling him a `Chamar') when he stood
near the car which was parked at the
gate of the premises. In our opinion,
this was certainly a place within
public view, since the gate of a house
is certainly a place within public
view. It could have been a different
matter had the alleged offence been
committed inside a building, and also
was not in the public view. However, if
the offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a
house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane outside
the boundary wall, the lawn would
certainly be a place within the public
view. Also, even if the remark is made
inside a building, but some members of
the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then also it
would be an offence since it is in the
public view. We must, therefore, not
confuse the expression `place within
public view' with the expression
`public place'. A place can be a
private place but yet within the public
view. On the other hand, a public place
would ordinarily mean a place which is
owned or leased by the Government or
the municipality (or other local body)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of
the State, and not by private persons
or private bodies."
8.3 In case of Hitesh Verma v. State of
Uttarakhand & Anr., (2020) 10 SCC 710.
14. Another key ingredient of the
provision is insult or intimidation in
"any place within public view". What is
to be regarded as "place in public
view" had come up for consideration
before this Court in the judgment
reported as Swarn Singh & Ors. v. State
through Standing Counsel & Ors. The
Court had drawn distinction between the
expression "public place" and "in any
place within public view". It was held
that if an offence is committed outside
the building e.g. in a lawn outside a
house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane outside
the boundary wall, then the lawn would
certainly be a place within the public
view. On the contrary, if the remark is
made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then it
would not be an offence since it is not
in the public view. The Court held as
under:
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR
that Vinod Nagar, the first informant,
was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by
calling him a "chamar") when he stood
near the car which was parked at the
gate of the premises. In our opinion,
this was certainly a place within
public view, since the gate of a house
is certainly a place within public
view. It could have been a different
matter had the alleged offence been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
committed inside a building, and also
was not in the public view. However, if
the offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a
house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane outside
the boundary wall, the lawn would
certainly be a place within the public
view. Also, even if the remark is made
inside a building, but some members of
the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then also it
would be an offence since it is in the
public view. We must, therefore, not
confuse the expression "place within
public view" with the expression
"public place". A place can be a
private place but yet within the public
view. On the other hand, a public place
would ordinarily mean a place which is
owned or leased by the Government or
the municipality (or other local body)
or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of
the State, and not by private persons
or private bodies."
9. The complaint given on 02.01.2007 produced
at Exh.18 by the complainant would state that on
25.12.2006, she was staying with her husband at
Surat, beside Priyanka Society. It was her love
marriage. The marriage was registered at Surat
Court. During the course of the marriage, she
gave birth to a daughter and at the time of
complaint the age of the daughter was one and
half month. Since the complainant was having an
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
infant child hence, she could not go for the
labour work and therefore, husband often would
verbally abuse her and beat her. However, the
husband told her that he had registered the love
marriage in the Court only for his own luxury,
who would mentally harass her often by passing
casteist remark, and was asking her to run away
from the home and threatened to kill the child.
9.1 The complainant stated that she was from
'Chamar' community and thereafter she left Surat
in a private vehicle and was frightened. On
26.12.2006, she arrived at Patan Mahila Suraksha
Gruh at 3:30 in the afternoon and through the
Mahila Suraksha Branch Office, she made
representation to the Dy.S.P. - K.G. Vaghela. Her
brother, mother and the mother-in-law, Chaudhary
Rajiben Lavjibhai, resident of Ranuj did not
accept her and therefore, she had gone to Nari
Suraksha Gruh; there she stayed for four to five
days and on 01.01.2007 at 1:30 in the afternoon,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
her relative Jayantibhai Manilal of Ranuj took
her to Ranuj village from Nari Suraksha Gruh.
Thereafter, she went to her father-in-law's house
at Chaudharyvas at Ranuj at the house of her
husband Chaudhari Pravinbhai Lavjibhai; at that
time, the mother-in-law, Chaudhary Rajiben, was
present there and she started abusing her by her
caste and gave her fist blows and asked her to go
away from the house.
9.2 The complainant stated that mother-in-law
had uttered unpleasant words connecting her caste
lowering her dignity. The mother-in-law had also
stated that her children are suffering in the
community because of her, therefore, she returned
back to Mahila Suraksha Branch, at that time,
Head Constable Babiben and L.P.B. Binaben were
with her, and thereafter through her brother she
had informed the President A.G. Tavani of the
'Minority Community Mahaparisad, Gujarat State',
and had come to police Station to file the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
complaint.
9.3 According to the complainant, the incident
had occurred on 01.01.2007 in the evening between
4:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the house of her father-in-
law. She stated that her husband as well as her
mother-in-law both had beaten her with fisticuffs
and therefore, she visited the Hospital. At the
time of incident her sister was present there,
who assisted to relieve her.
9.4 The complaint does not state the date of
marriage. The marriage was registered.
Accordingly, if that fact is considered, then the
husband was aware of the caste of complainant.
The complainant was at that time having one and
half month child, and while she had given
deposition in the Court on 14.07.2008, she had
stated that she is pregnant with the another
child.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
9.5 The deposition suggests that the marriage
was five years prior to the complaint. The
Certificate of Marriage was produced at Exh.16.
The place of residence of husband and wife was
recorded as Taluka-Chorasi, District Surat, and
her original place of residence was recorded as
Ranuj Muslimvas, Taluka & District Patan. She in
her marriage registration form has shown her
status as unmarried. The deposition shows that
she was earlier married at village Chaveli
Taluka-Chanasma. That fact is not reflected in
the marriage registration form, Exh.16. The date
of registration of marriage is 15.07.2003. The
age of husband was 23 years, while the
complainant was of 34 years, as reflected from
document Exh.16, the marriage certificate.
9.6 In the deposition, the complainant stated
that she was staying along with accused No.1 at
Surat and was doing labour work and they were at
Surat for about three years, and within this
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
period, they had a daughter and thereafter lastly
for about one year she was at Gandhidham with
husband, where her husband was working as a
labourer in a soap factory. She stated that
accused after drinking alcohol would beat her and
mentally harass her, even insulted her by her
caste.
9.7 Further evidence of the complainant was
that initially she was residing at Surat with
accused, where husband was beating and mentally
harassing her and thereafter at Ranuj she stayed
with her husband at the house. She was not
allowed to stay in the house by accused and was
removed from the house, by beating her and
accusing her by her caste.
9.8 In connection with the present appellant as
mother-in-law, the complainant stated that she
was insulted by her by casteist remarks and was
beaten and removed from the house. She went to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
Bhagini Samaj at Patan, where she resided for
four to five days, but since accused had not come
to take her back, therefore, she had filed the
complaint.
10. The evidence brings contradiction to the
complaint filed. In the complaint it is not
stated that she was staying with mother-in-law at
Ranuj prior to residing at Bhagini Samaj, Patan.
The incident, which she states of being insulted
and beaten by mother-in-law is only after she has
visited the in-laws house after having resided at
Nari Suraksha Gruh, Ranuj for four to five days.
She specified the date as 01.01.2007, a day prior
to the complaint. According to her on 01.01.2007
her relative Jayanti Manilal of Ranuj took her
from Nari Suraksha Gruh to her in-laws house at
Chaudharivas. She stated that mother-in-law was
present there, abused her by caste and had beaten
her and removed her from the house.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
10.1 This fact, as noted in the complaint at
Exh.18 does not get co-related with the
deposition of the complaint. The evidence rather
would say that the complainant had no occasion to
stay with mother-in-law prior to filing the
complaint, if the complaint, Exh.18 and the
deposition are read together. It appears that the
daughter-in-law wanted to drag mother-in-law in
the matter and had tried to involve husband as
well as mother-in-law under the Atrocity Act.
11. From the complaint, it transpires that she
had visited the Government Hospital. The
certificate at Exh.14 was produced by Doctor
Bhagwatiprasad Ramlal Patel. The Doctor had
examined the victim - complainant on 02.01.2007
at 8.25 in the night, where she was brought by
her real brother with police Yadi from P.S.P.
Patan. The history before the Doctor was that she
was given kick and fist blows on 01.01.2007 at
4.00 p.m. by Pravin Lavjibhai Chaudhari i.e. her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
husband. She has not made any allegation against
mother-in-law before the Doctor. Jayantilal
Manilal Solanki had accompanied the complainant
at the house of accused.
11.1 Jayantilal Manilal, the brother, was
examined as P.W.5. The deposition suggests that
earlier the complainant had married at Chaneri
and she had taken divorce from her husband and
thereafter, complainant was staying with her
mother at Ranuj, and the complainant married
accused No.1 and started staying at Surat, where
they stayed for about three years.
11.2 According to the brother for about one or
two years, the marriage was going on smoothly.
The complainant had given birth to a daughter.
Thereafter, he stated that accused had left the
complainant alone at Surat, therefore, she had
come to Patan with assistance of some person by
paying rent and thereafter had gone to Ranuj at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
her in-laws place, where accused were not willing
to keep her and insulted her by her caste,
therefore, the complaint was filed at Bhagini
Samaj, and thereafter at the police station.
After the complaint, accused had tried to make
efforts for settlement, therefore he had left the
sister at the in-law's place.
11.3 The brother stated that after three to four
months, she was thrown out of the house and
during that period she was subjected to
harassment. Thereafter, they had filed a case of
maintenance, where after settlement she was taken
back home. According to brother thereafter for
certain period accused and the complainant
resided at Gandhidham and again she came back
home. The brother as a witness stated that
accused were not ready to keep the sister along
with them. She got pregnant with another child.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
11.4 The deposition of the brother does not
note that he had gone along with the complainant
to file the complaint. The brother records that
after returning back from Surat she had come to
Patan at Ranuj and since the in-laws were not
ready to keep her she had given a complaint at
Bhagini Samaj and even at the police station.
After the settlement the sister again started
staying with accused and for about three to four
months she stayed with them and then she filed a
case of maintenance and after settlement she was
taken back.
11.5 All these facts were not disclosed in the
complaint, nor the complainant herself stated
about these relevant facts. If deposition of the
brother is minutely considered, then the facts
stated by the complainant and the complaint
itself gets falsified. The incident of
01.01.2007, as alleged in the complaint does not
get corroboration from the evidence of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
brother. No copy of the case filed under the
Maintenance Act has been produced on record to
bring a corroboration of the fact that the
complainant was subjected to atrocities lowering
down her dignity by insulting her making casteist
remark.
11.6 The allegation of insulting her and
mistreating her by her caste is only of the day
dated 01.01.2007, where she alleged that the
husband as well as mother-in-law had beaten her,
while the evidence of the Doctor before whom the
history was given, the complainant had not
alleged of any such beatings by mother-in-law.
12. Ambalal Jethabhai Tabhani was examined as
P.W.8 at Exh.28, who was the president of 'Soshit
Laghumati Samaj Mahaparisad', Gujarat Pradesh.
According to him, the complainant had met her at
Nari Sanrakshan Gruh, Patan. She informed that
she had come from Surat and was thrown out of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
house. The witness had made the representation in
the institution and had asked the husband to
settle the issue, and since the complainant, her
brother and mother were not willing to settle,
therefore, the complaint was filed, and when it
was asked to give complaint, he had gone to
police station. In the cross-examination, he
stated that he was a leader of 'Dalit Samaj',
however, he has no knowledge about the incident.
12.1 Dy.S.P., who is authorised to undertake the
investigation, as per statutory provision of the
Atrocities Act, was examined as P.W.9 at Exh.29.
The Investigation Officer - Savjibhai Khatuji
Ninama was on duty on 02.01.2007 and he was given
the depute order by P.S.O. of A.S. Cr.No.1/2007.
He produced the depute order at Exh.25 and
referred to the complaint, Exh.18. He had
recorded statement of the relatives of
complainant and visited the place of incident.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
12.2 The panchnama was produced at Exh.20 and
medical certificate was procured in connection
with the complainant. The copy of the marriage
certificate he referred as Exh.17. He referred
about the scheduled caste of the complainant. He
had filed the charge sheet against accused.
According to him, surrounding the place of
incident, there are house of Patels. He denied
the suggestion that he had not recorded the
statements of the neighbours and affirmed that
since the neighbours were not supporting,
therefore, they have not been cited in the charge
sheet.
12.3 The fact, if considered of the allegation
made in the complaint that she was thrown out of
the house on 01.01.2007, certainly that incident
would have been observed by the neighbours if it
had so happened, but none of the neighbours
supported the incident, hence they could not be
considered as witness by the Investigating
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
Officer.
13. In the deposition the complainant stated
that earlier she had filed the maintenance
application at Patan Court and there the matter
got settled. She stated that husband was not
ready to keep her as a wife, and said about being
pregnant, and has given the evidence of this
being second marriage. In the cross-examination,
she affirmed that since she had married a person
from Chaudhari community, the members of her
community got offended, and also stated that the
persons from her parental side were not keeping
relation with her.
13.1 The complainant affirmed that after the
marriage she was staying at Surat with accused
and also affirmed the fact that her mother-in-law
was staying all alone at Ranuj. She stayed for
about six days at Bhagini Samaj. She also
affirmed that after the settlement in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
maintenance case, when it was denied to stay at
Ranuj, they had started residing at Thara. These
all facts, which have been brought on record
clearly suggests that daughter-in-law had no
occasion to reside with mother-in-law, who was
residing all alone.
13.2 A deliberate attempt has been made to bring
in presence of the sister - Jadiben Manilal
(P.W.4), who refers to the love marriage of the
complainant with accused No.1, and stated that
after the marriage the sister was staying with
accused at Surat and since she was of Schedule
Caste, she was beaten and was removed from the
house from Surat. According to the sister, the
complainant had come to Ranuj at accused house.
She was returning back from labour work, at that
time, she had seen crowd near accused place and
accused were beating her, and after releasing her
sister she had taken her to the Bhagini Samaj,
where she stayed for about a week, and when the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
accused had not come back to take the sister
home, they had filed the complaint.
13.3 The evidence of the sister, thus, runs
contrary to the complaint. The sister is not
specifying the date on which she had seen the
accused beating her. According to sister after
the beatings, when complainant was removed from
the house she was sent to Bhagini Samaj and there
she stayed for about a week and then complaint
was filed, which is totally contrary to the
complaint.
14. On analysis of the evidence, as referred
herein above, the brother or sister or the
representative of the community Ambalal Jethabhai
Tabhani (P.W.8), does not refer or depose about
any such casteist remarks or any beatings by the
mother-in-law, and the medical record suggests
that it was the husband, who had beaten the wife,
who is now no more. The case against the mother-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
in-law does not stand proved, neither under
Section 498A, nor under Section 323 or 504 I.P.C.
In the same way, no case of Section 3(i)(x) and
(xi) of the Atrocities Act stands proved.
15. The learned Trial Court Judge has failed to
analyse the evidence of the witnesses minutely.
The appreciation of the evidence is required to
be made taking into consideration the complaint
filed. The witnesses have given a contrary
version. It appears that since the husband had
not taken her back, the complaint came to be
filed. No case against the mother-in-law could be
proved.
16. In view of the observations and reasons
given herein above, Criminal Appeal No.2291 of
2008 is allowed. The judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the Special Judge, Patan on
29.08.2008 in Special Atrocity Case No.24 of 2007
is set aside qua Appellant No.2 - Chaudhary
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2291/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
Rajiben wife of Lavjibhai Bababhai, mother-in-
law. She is acquitted from all the charges. Bail
bound stands discharged.
16.1 The State could not prove the case for even
enhancement of the sentence or under the
Atrocities Act, thus, Criminal Appeal No.2756 of
2008 and Criminal Appeal No.2757 of 2008 stand
dismissed.
16.2 Registry is directed to send the Record and
Proceedings back to the concerned Trial Court
forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/ suppl.(2)
