[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Fulabhai Varsingbhai Pandore on 4 December, 2025

                                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.A/623/2010                                              JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

                                                                                                                           undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 623 of 2010


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

                                    Approved for Reporting                               Yes           No

                       ==========================================================
                                                     STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                           Versus
                                           FULABHAI VARSINGBHAI PANDORE & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS JYOTI BHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                             Date : 04/12/2025

                                                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1.1 Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.11.2009 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, in Sessions

Case No.43 of 2008 for the offences punishable under

Sections 306, 498A 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").

1.2 It is reported that during the pendency of this

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/623/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

appeal, respondent No.1 has expired. Therefore, this appeal is

disposed of as abated qua respondent No.1 only.

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial

before the lower Court, is that, marriage of the deceased -

Sheelaben Jithrabhai Katara, W/o. Shaileshbhai Fulabhai

Pandor has solemnized before one year of the incident; and

that on 11.10.2007, the complainant - Jithrabhai Nathabhai

Katara received a message from villages that his daughter

has fallen down in the Well; and that due to ill-treatment

given by the in-laws regarding dowry, she has committed

suicide is the complaint of the complainant before the

Fatepura Police Station for the offences punishable under

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

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

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.43 of 2008. The charge

was framed against the accused person/s. The accused

pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/623/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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 they

were charged, 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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/623/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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.

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 neither examined the husband

of the deceased nor has examined any independent witness.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/623/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

8.2 If the testimony of P.W.1 - Dr.Shakjibhai Gavjibhai

Bhabhor, who has been examined vide Exh.16, is taken into

consideration, he is the doctor who has carried out the

postmortem and from the postmortem report, it has been

proved by the prosecution that there were no bruises and

there were no external injury on the deceased.

8.3 The Court has also taken into consideration the

evidence of the father of the deceased viz., Jitharabhai

Nathabhai Katara - P.W.3, who has been examined vide

Exh.20, and in his testimony also, there are lot of

contradictions and discrepancies. In the cross-examination, the

said witness has not stated that the deceased used to come

to her parental house when she was upset with her in-laws.

Further, from the deposition of the father of the deceased, it has also come on the record that there was no

demand of any dowry from the in-laws of the deceased. The

Sessions Court has also taken into consideration that though

the incident has taken place on 11.10.2007 and the

complainant has stated that he has filed a complaint on the

same day, but, in examination-in-chief, the said witness has

stated that he has filed a complaint after two days of the

incident and therefore, there are lot of contradictions and

discrepancies in his deposition.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/623/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

8.4 From the deposition of the father of the deceased,

the prosecution has not been able to prove that there was

any mental and/or physical assault on the deceased by the

accused. P.W.5 - Sitaben Pravinbhai Machhar, who has been

examined vide Exh.23, who is a sister of the deceased, has

deposed that there were quarrels on trivial matters between

the in-laws and the deceased.

The other relatives who have been examined vide

Exh.24 i.e. Dhirjibhai Manabhai Katara - P.W.6 also states

that there were trivial fights between the in-laws and the

deceased. If the testimony of P.W.7 - Dhirjibhai Manabhai

Katara, Exh.25 and P.W.8 - Mansingbhai Khatubhai, Exh.26

are taken into consideration, they have not stated that what

kind of harassment was done by the accused to the deceased.

There is also no evidence as to when the deceased had fell in the Well. It has also come on record that the

said Well was used for the purpose of drinking water. It has

also not come on record that whether the deceased fell in

the Well accidentally or suicidal. The prosecution has failed

to show the time of the death of the deceased. The

prosecution has also not proved that who has first seen the

dead body and who has brought out the dead body from the

Well.

8.5 The trial Court has rightly held that there was no

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/623/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/623/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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.

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/623/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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

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."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/623/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/623/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/623/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/623/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/623/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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