[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Rajesh Jayantilal Dave on 4 December, 2025

                                                                                                                       NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.A/280/2010                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

                                                                                                                        undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 280 of 2010


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

                                    Approved for Reporting                          Yes             No

                       ==========================================================
                                                      STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                            Versus
                                                 RAJESH JAYANTILAL DAVE & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR SHIRISH R PATEL(5605) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                          Date : 04/12/2025

                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.03.2009 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.18,

Ahmedabad (City), in Sessions Case No.92 of 2007 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").

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial

before the lower Court, is that, on 24.11.2005, the deceased -

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

Kalyaniben, who has married with Rajeshbhai Jayantilal Dave

on 14.07.2005, has died by hanging herself in the house due

to mental and physical tortured by the in-laws within a short

span of marriage. Therefore, the complainant has lodged a

complaint before the Odhav 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.92 of 2007. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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 On considering the testimony of P.W.4 - Anilkumar

Keshavlal Trivedi - the Complainant - the father of the

deceased, who has been examined vide Exh.15, has deposed

that the deceased had last come on 05.10.2005, but the said

fact has not been stated by him in his police statement. The

said witness has also deposed that he would not have

complained if the police had not asked for his statement. In

his cross-examination, the said witness has stated that the

complainant had filed the complaint only because he was

suspicious.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

8.2 The sister of the deceased viz., Jignashaben

Pareshkumar Shukla has been examined as P.W.5, vide

Exh.19 and there are lot of contradictions on the fact that

the deceased had called her and informed her about the

harassment that has been meted out to her by the accused;

and that the said statement has not been given by the said

witness before the police. The said witness had no personal

knowledge of harassment and the said witness has also

stated that she had informed her father to file the police

complaint and therefore the police complaint is filed.

8.3 Further, if the testimony of the brother of the

deceased - Kalpesh Anilbhai Trivedi - P.W.6, who has been

examined vide Exh.20, is seen, the said witness also does not state that there was any fight on 04.11.2005 and even there

are lot of contradictions and discrepancies in his testimony. It

has also come on the record that he had not informed in his

police statement that he had visited earlier the residence of

the in-laws of the deceased and met the deceased. The

prosecution has also not proved that the said witness had

stated that the deceased had informed him about any

harassment by in-laws.

8.4 From the deposition of P.W.7 - Dr.Chunilal Jujalal

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

Kumavat at Exh.22, who had carried out the postmortem, it

has come on record that the death is due to hanging. The

PSI - Sabursinh Vaghaji Jhala has been examined vide

Exh.26 as P.W.8 and he had taken the complaint and done

the panchanama of place of incident.

8.5 The panchas of the panchnama of scene of offence

i.e. Vijaysinh Dilipsinh Waghela and Natubhai Kanjibhai

Parmar have been examined vide Exhs.10 and 12, as P.W.1

and P.W.2, respectively, have not supported the case of the

prosecution and have turned hostile.

Vide Exh.13, the prosecution has examined the

witness to the inquest panchnama i.e. Varshaben

Navinchandra Parmar - P.W.3, whereby it has come on the record that she is staying across the house of the husband of

the deceased and she did not hear any quarrel.

8.6 The prosecution has also not been able to prove

that the father or other family members of the deceased have

ever raised any complaint about the harassment which was

done to the deceased before the date of filing of the

complaint.

8.7 It has also come on record that the incident had

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

happened in Ahmedabad and the complainant was staying at

Wadhwan, District Surendranagar and after hearing the

unfortunate incident of her daughter hanging herself, the

complainant has not filed any complaint for 26 days as the

incident had taken place on 24.11.2005 and the complaint

has been filed on 20.12.2005.

8.8 It has also come on record that when the dead

body was handed over to the brother of the deceased, he has

stated at that time that he does not want to file any

complaint.

8.9 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

"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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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."

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/280/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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.

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 respondents - 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