Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Arjanbhai Premjibhai on 13 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 879 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ARJANBHAI PREMJIBHAI & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 13/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State
under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the
order dated 21.09.2007 in Sessions Case No.23 of 2005 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhangadhra (hereinafter
referred to as 'the learned Trial Court'), whereby, the learned Trial
Court has acquitted the respondents - accused from the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'). The respondents are
hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as they stood in the rank
and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and
brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under:
2.1. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the brother-in-law and
sister-in-law of the deceased Sarojben Mansukhbhai, who was
married to the younger brother of the accused No.1 about 7 years
prior to the incident that had occurred on 07.06.2004. The accused
and Mansukhbhai Premjibhai, the husband of the deceased, had
purchased land and constructed a house in Nilkanth Park at
village Halvad and were residing in that house and both the
accused wanted to snatch away the house from the deceased
Sarojben. About 4-5 months prior to the incident, both the accused
were physically and mentally harassing the deceased. That the
deceased was fed up with the harassment and they went to live
separate from the accused on the top portion of the house with her
children, which was not liked by the accused and they spoke bitter
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
words to the deceased. On 07.06.2004, at 9:45 hours, the deceased
sprinkled kerosene on herself and committed suicide and the
complaint was filed by the complainant Chaturbhai Dungarsinh
Dalwadi, the father of the deceased, on 20.12.2004, at 19:00 hours,
with Halvad Police Station which was registered at I-C.R.No.94 of
2004 under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the IPC.
2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was
carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having
sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be
filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case
was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion
of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was
committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as
Sessions Case No.23 of 2005.
2.3. The accused were duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was
verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided
to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and
a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.3 and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 4 and 5
respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on
record. The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and has
produced 9 documentary evidences in support of the case.
2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned
APP at Exh.47, the further statement of the accused under Section
313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the
learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after
perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the
impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the IPC.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the
appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that
the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial
Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned
Trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to
establish the case beyond the reasonable doubts. The learned Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
Court has erred in evaluating the evidence on record of the case
and without appreciating the evidence in its real perspective, has
acquitted the accused. The learned Trial Court has erred in
appreciating the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses
produced in the present case as the evidence gets corroboration
from each other. The learned Trial Court has, without giving any
specific reason, not discussed the evidence of the witnesses in the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal and has discarded the
evidence of the witnesses. The learned Trial Court has erred in not
considering the fact that the deceased committed suicide as she
was being harassed by the accused and was mentally and
physically tortured time and again and the learned Trial Court has
not appreciated the important evidence in its real spirit and has
acquitted the accused. The learned Trial Court has passed the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal without giving any
cogent and convincing reasons and therefore, the same requires to
be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr.Bhargav Pandya for the
appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.Param Buch for learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
advocate Mr.Hriday Buch for the respondents. Perused the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-
appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the
case.
5. Learned APP Mr.Bhargav Pandya for the appellant -
State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced
by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned
Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the
prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the the case
and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the
learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted
the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles
of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned
Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case
and also on presumption, not permitted by law. Learned APP has
urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said
offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
appeal and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Param Buch for learned advocate
Mr. Hriday Buch for the respondents - original accused has
submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the
evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in
acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is
required in the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal
passed by the learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to
reject the appeal.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present
case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the
Apex Court regarding acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa
& Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the
Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 :
AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against
acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power
exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of
appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one
significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered
with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is
based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a
different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind
that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and
the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it
decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the
decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied)
........ From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following
general principles regarding powers of 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 emphasize 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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
8. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against
acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that
no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after
appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial
Court, it appears that there is some manifest illegality or perversity
which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is
also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate
Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal
shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the
accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The
golden thread which runs through the web of administration of
justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the
accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the
accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the
view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not
disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can
interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there
are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly
unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
9. The accused has been charged with the offence under
Section 306 of the IPC and at this juncture it would be fit to
reproduce the observations of the Apex Court in the case of
Prakash and others versus State of Maharashtra in the order
passed in Criminal Appeal No.5543 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP
(Cri.) No. 1073 of 2023 on 20 December 2024 in paras 12 to 22
which are as under:
"12. The relevant provisions of the IPC that fall for consideration are
as under:
"306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
107. Abetment of a thing--A person abets the doing of a
thing, who--
First.-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation-1: A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or
by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is
bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said
to instigate the doing of that thing.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
Explanation 2: Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate
the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of
suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act
by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section
306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused
person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some
direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or
involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107
of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted,
time and again, and its principles are well- established. To
attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to
establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or
incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close
proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such
instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet
the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a
position that he/she would have no other option but to commit
suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of
decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a 10
particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC,
the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating
or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide.
Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being
apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the
aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires
an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused
person which left the deceased with no other option but to
commit suicide.
16. This Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan and Another12, had an occasion to consider the scope
of Section 306 of the IPC and the ingredients which are essential
for abetment, as set out in Section 107 of the IPC. It observed as
follows:
16. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere defined in the
Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well
known and requires no explanation. "Sui" means "self"
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
and "cide" means "killing", thus implying an act of self-
killing. In short, a person committing suicide must
commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed
by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
...........
18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence,
considering that the successful offender is beyond the
reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under
Section 309 IPC.
..........
21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance
on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh V. State
of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] In
Mahendra Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC
(Cri) 1157] the allegations levelled were as under: (SCC p.
731, para 1)
"1. ... My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law
(husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They
beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra
wants to marry a second time. He has illicit
connections with my sister-in-law. Because of
these reasons and being harassed I want to die by
burning." The Court on the aforementioned
allegations came to a definite conclusion that by
no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted
on the statement of the deceased. According to the
appellant, the conviction of the appellant under
Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the
aforementioned allegation of harassment of the
deceased is unsustainable in law.
... ...........
23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994
SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that: (SCC p.
90, para 17)
"17. ... The court should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each case
and the evidence adduced in the trial for the
purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out
to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life
by committing suicide. If it [appears] to the court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
12 differences in domestic life quite common to
the society to which the victim belonged and such
petulance, discord and differences were not
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to commit suicide,
the conscience of the court should not be satisfied
for basing a finding that the accused charged of
abetting the offence of suicide should be found
guilty."
24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367]
had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The
Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words
"instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there
should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the
doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability
pattern is different from the other. Each person has his
own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is
impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in
dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on
the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot
be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio
of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to
convict a person under Section 306IPC there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he committed suicide."
17. This Court held that abetment involves the mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of
a thing. Therefore, without a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained. This Court further observed
that the intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
commit the offence. Abetment also requires an active act or
direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
other option and that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
However, this Court has cautioned that since each person reacts
differently to the same provocation depending on a variety of
factors, it is impossible to lay down a straightjacket formula to
deal with such cases. Therefore, every such case has to be
decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda
and Others v. State of Gujarat, this Court has relied on S.S.
Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea cannot
simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and
explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational
requirement for establishing abetment under the law, that is
deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute
to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled. This Court
observed as follows:
"18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-
established legal principle that the presence of clear mens
rea--the intention to abet the act--is essential. Mere
harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused
guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must
demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that
led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of
mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must
be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the
foundational requirement for establishing abetment
under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity
of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or
contribute to the act of suicide."
19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a
crucial element of abetment. While dealing with an issue of a
similar nature, this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State
of Chhattisgarh laid down the parameters of what would be
constituted to be an act of instigation. This Court observed as
follows:-
"20. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The
present one is not a case where the accused had by his
acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide in which
case an instigation may have been inferred. A word
uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation."
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is
to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an
act". It has been held that in order 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,
however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of
the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the
fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
21. Relying on the decision in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra),
this Court in the case of Ude Singh and Others v. State of
Haryana observed as follows:
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that
the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the
context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes
of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case
of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be
looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of
suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether
a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by
another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
commission of suicide by another, the consideration
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation
of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this
Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means
to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been
hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise
not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be
safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by
his continuous course of conduct creates a situation
which leads the deceased perceiving no other option
except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the
four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an
active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of
the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit
suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of
suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with reference
to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts
and deeds are only of such nature where the accused
intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of
anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of
abetment of suicide.
However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying
the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased
reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of
abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate
analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be
examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the
surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and
psyche of the accused and the deceased.
16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected
and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's
action on the mind of another carries several
imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently
by different persons; and so far a particular person's
reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is
no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the
same. Even in regard to the factors related with the
question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be
considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or
urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill
action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
also vary for a variety of factors, including those of
background, self-confidence and upbringing. 18 Hence,
each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and
circumstances."
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in
cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It has been held that since the
cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence
of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex
attributes of human behaviour, the court would be
looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court
further observed that a mere allegation of harassment of
the deceased by another person would not suffice unless
there is such action on the part of the accused which
compels the person to commit suicide. This Court also
emphasised that such an offending action ought to be
proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further
clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with reference
to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It was further
held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature
where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or a snap-show of anger, a particular case
may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide,
however, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the
deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or
was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment
of suicide. This Court held that owing to the fact that the
human mind could be affected and could react in myriad
ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by
different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its
own facts and circumstances."
10. In light of the above, the evidence produced by the
prosecution on record is appreciated and the prosecution has
examined PW-1 Bodabhai Jesingbhai at Exh.9 and PW-3 Jasuben
Ishwarbhai Dalwadi at Exh.12. Both the witnesses are the panch
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
witnesses of the inquest panchnama, which is produced at Exh.10.
The witnesses have stated that while they were at the Government
Hospital, Halvad, the police had asked them to affix their
signatures on the inquest panchnama and they have not seen the
dead body of the deceased. Both the witnesses have not supported
the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and
during the cross-examination by the learned APP, nothing to
support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
10.1 The prosecution has examined PW-4 Maganbhai
Bhikhabhai Dalwadi at Exh. 13 and PW-5 Rameshbhai Devjibhai at
Exh.15 and both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the
panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exh.14.
Both the witnesses have stated that while they were at village
Halvad, the police had called them and asked them to affix their
signatures on the panchnama but, they had not gone with the
police to draw any panchnama of any place of offence. The
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have
been declared hostile and during the lengthy cross-examination,
nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
10.2 The prosecution has examined PW-6 Chaturbhai
Dungarbhai Parmar at Exh.16 and the witness is the complainant
and the father of the deceased, who has stated that on 07.06.2004,
he was informed on the telephone about his daughter being burnt
and he was told that his daughter was referred to Ahmedabad,
and he, his wife and other persons went to Halvad and found that
persons from their society had gathered and they had told him
that his daughter was taken to the hospital. When they reached the
hospital, the accused and his son in-law were present, who told
him that his daughter was burnt while she had gone to take bath
in the bathroom but, some persons had told them that his
daughter had committed suicide due to the bitter words uttered by
the accused. That he was informed that his daughter had expired
and he went to the Halvad Police Station but, no officer was
present, and hence, he returned back to the hospital at Halvad,
and thereafter, his daughter was cremated. That once again, he
went to the Halvad Police Station where he was told that an
accidental death was registered and on 16.04.2004, his cousin
Natubhai told him to come and meet Gandhi Saheb, who was an
advocate at Halvad and he would prepare the papers and he
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
would give a right in the property to the children of his daughter,
and thereafter, he came to Halvad and met the advocate and two
plots were registered in the name of his grand children. That in
July, he met Premjibhai, the father in-law of his daughter, who told
him that Rs.2,00,000/- was given as a compromise for his
daughter's death and he went to the Collector Officer and gave his
statement about the quarrel of his daughter with the accused, and
thereafter, he filed the complaint, which is produced at Exh.17.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he has worked in the police
department for 36½ years, and at the time of his retirement, he was
working as an A.S.I., and at the time of the incident, he was
working at Morbi as an A.S.I. That the accused are financial well
off and and both the accused are working as teachers and have
immovable properties like land and plots.
10.3. The prosecution has examined PW-6 Devjibhai
Maganbhai Dalwadi at Exh.27 and the witness is the neighbour of
the accused, who has stated that on 07.06.2004 between 9:30am to
9:45am, some shouts were heard from Mansukhbhai's house and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
he went and saw that the deceased was lying with a quilt over her
and was fully burnt. That the accused and her husband were
present and they told him to bring the rickshaw and she was taken
to the Government Hospital in the rickshaw. That she was referred
to Ahmedabad and she was put in an ambulance and while she
was being taken to Ahmedabad, she expired on the way. The
witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has
been declared hostile. During the cross-examination by the learned
APP, nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on
record.
10.4 The prosecution has examined PW-7 Kasturiben
Chaturbhai at Exh.28 and the witness is the mother of the
deceased, who has supported the case of the prosecution
regarding the death of her daughter and has stated that the marital
life of her daughter was very good and she did not have any
harassment from her husband and from no persons in her law's
family. That her daughter she was burnt but, she does not know
how or why she was burnt. During the cross-examination by the
learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
daughter and son in-law were staying on the top portion of the
house at Halvad and the accused were staying in the lower portion
of the house.
10.5 The prosecution has examined PW-8 Chandrikaben
Kishorbhai at Exh.29 and PW-9 Ashaben Nagarbhai at Exh.30 and
both the witnesses are the sisters of the deceased, who have
supported the case of the prosecution.
10.6 The prosecution has examined PW-10 Dr.Babulal
Tribhovandas Malampara at Exh.31 and the witness is the Medical
Officer at CHC, Halvad, who was on duty on 07.06.2004 and has
performed the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. The
witness has stated that as per column No.17, the body had 100%
burns which was 1st to 3rd degree and there was blackening on the
skin on many parts and redness was seen on many parts, smell of
kerosene was found and both the eye brows and the hair on the
head were stuck to each other which were ante-mortem and there
were boils on the body at many parts. The cause of death was due
to shock on account of 100% burns.
10.7 The prosecution has examined PW-11 Abdul Hamid
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
Mahammadbhai Mukindo at Exh.35 and the witness was working
as an A.S.I. in Halvad Police Station and Accident Death No.13 of
2004 was registered and he had conducted the inquiry of the same.
The panchnama of the place of offence was drawn in the presence
of the panch witnesses and he had recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and on the next day, the investigation was
handed over to Dy.S.P., Surendranagar. During the cross-
examination, the witness has stated that in the statements recorded
by him, there were no allegations made against the accused and
there were no allegations that the accused were trying to snatch
away the house from the deceased, and were mentally and
physically harassing the deceased and she has committed suicide.
That no bitter words used by the accused were narrated by any of
the persons, whose statements have been recorded.
10.8 The prosecution has examined PW-12 Sureshchandra
Govindbhai Barochiya at Exh.36 and the witness had arrested the
accused and as they were granted anticipatory bail, had released
them on anticipatory bail. During the cross-examination, the
witness has stated that the investigation was with him for about 3
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
months and during entire time, there were no allegations that the
accused were trying to snatch away the house from the deceased.
The incident was also investigated by the Dy.S.P and A.S.I.
10.9 The prosecution has examined PW-13 Chandubhai
Poslabhai Chaudhari at Exh.37 and the witness has investigated
Accidental Death No.13 of 2004 while he was working as a Dy.S.P.,
Dhangadhra. The witness had recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and during the investigation, no cognizable
offence was found. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that there were no
allegations made against the in-laws while he was investigating
the matter and there were no allegations made that the accused
wanted to snatch away the house of the deceased and were
harassing the deceased.
10.10. The prosecution has examined PW-14
Harishchandrasinh Ganubha Zala at Exh.38 and the witness was
working as a Head Constable at Halvad Police Station and he had
investigated Accidental Death No.13 of 2004.
10.11 The prosecution has examined PW-15 Nanjibhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
Gandabhai Parmar at Exh.42 and the witness is the Investigating
Officer of Accidental Death No.13 of 2004 and he had drawn the
inquest panchanama, which is produced at Exh.10.
10.12 The prosecution has examined PW-16 Vanrajsinh
Juvansinh Gohil at Exh.45 and the witness is the Investigating
Officer, who has investigated the offence and has narrated all the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
11. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it has come on record that the complainant has
worked in the police department for 36½ years and the
complainant is the father of the deceased. The incident has
occurred on 07.06.2004 at 9:45am and Accident Death No.13 of
2004 was registered which was investigated by PW-12,13,14, 15
and 16 and during the entire investigation by all theses officers, no
cognizable offence was found out. The witnesses have recorded
that the statements of all the connected witnesses but no
allegations that the accused were harassing the deceased for
snatching away the house from her possession were made and that
they were using bitter words and as she could not bear the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
harassment, she committed suicide, has emerged on record.
During the cross-examination of the complainant, it has also come
on record that there were talks of compromise and an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- was to be paid by the father in-law of the deceased
and the complaint has been filed on 20.12.2004, more than 6
months after the incident. Admittedly, the investigation of
Accidental Death No.13 of 2004 has gone on for around 6 months
and during the entire period, no allegations of any ill-treatment
were found but, the complainant has filed the complaint on
20.12.2004 even though the complainant himself was working in
the police department. It has come on record that the deceased, her
husband Mansukhbhai and the accused, who are the elder brother
and sister in -law of Mansukhbhai were residing in the same house
and the accused were residing on the ground floor and the
deceased and her husband Mansukhbhai were residing on the first
floor. That if any kind of quarrel or bitter words were used by the
accused, the husband of the deceased was the best witness and he
would have witnessed all the quarrels between the deceased and
the accused but, it is pertinent to note that the husband of the
deceased has not been examined before the learned Trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
The allegations made by the sisters of the deceased and the mother
of the deceased are mere bald statements and there is no
supportive evidence of any ill-treatment meted out by the accused
and there is no iota of evidence that at any point of time, prior to
the incident, the accused had instigated provoked, incited or
encouraged the deceased do any act to end her life. It has also
come on record that the both the accused were working as teachers
and there is nothing on record to suggest that immediately, prior
to incident, the accused had any kind of quarrel with the deceased.
Moreover, it is also on record that the deceased was married for 8-
9 years prior to the incident and they had two children but the
children have also not been examined before the learned Trial
Court.
13. In view of the above, the learned trial Court has
appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there
does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has
appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/879/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just
and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by
the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement
with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of
acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the
present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is
dismissed.
14. The impugned judgment and the order dated
21.09.2007 in Sessions Case No.23 of 2005 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Dhangadhra is hereby confirmed.
15. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI
