Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rameshbhai Alias Ramanbhai Ranabhai ... on 24 February, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/505/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 505 of 1997
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMESHBHAI ALIAS RAMANBHAI RANABHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
MR BILAL KAGZI(6618) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 24/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
(1) The present appeal is confined to original
accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 only, whereas accused
No.3, who was the mother-in-law of the
complainant-deceased, has already passed away
and, therefore, the present appeal stands abated
qua her.
(2) The accused Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers-in-
law, and the accused No.4 is the wife of the
complainant, and as mentioned hereinabove, the
deceased - accused No.3, who was the mother-in-
law of the complainant-deceased.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/505/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
(3) The present appeal has arisen from the
acquittal judgment and order dated 28.02.1997
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.14, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.133 of
1993.
(4) The case of the prosecution, as per the
charge at Exh.2 and the complaint registered by
the complainant at Exh.16 is that all the accused
on 23.02.1992, had around 3 p.m., poured kerosene
on him and set him ablaze. The charge of Section
307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 was framed.
(5) Learned APP Mr.Sharma has submitted that the
impugned judgement and order passed by the trial
Court is required to be quashed as the same is
passed without appreciation of the evidence on
record. He has submitted that the complainant in
his complaint dated 23.03.1992 has categorically
described the role of each of the accused, more
particularly accused No.4 i.e. wife of the
complainant. It is submitted that there were
strained relationship between the wife and the
complainant and maintenance proceedings were
going-on between them and on the day of incident,
they had some quarrel between them and
ultimately, she (accused No.4), along with other
accused, in connivance with each other, had
poured kerosene on the complainant, while he was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/505/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
sleeping in the afternoon. He has also referred
to the medical evidence, more particularly the
evidence of the doctor i.e. PW-6, Dr.Virendra
Kanaiyalal and has submitted that his evidence
proved the complicity of the accused in the
offence. He has also refer to the treatment
papers and has submitted that the same would
reveal that the complainant named his wife in the
incident and thus, it is submitted that very
vital aspects have been ignored by the trial
Court while acquitting the accused.
(6) We have perused the entire evidence as well
as findings of the trial Court acquitting the
accused for the offence, for which they were
charged.
(7) As per the case of the prosecution, all the
accused, on 23.03.1992 at 3 p.m., had poured
kerosene on the complainant when he was sleeping
and ultimately, set him ablaze. The reason
assigned by the prosecution is that the accused
No.4 was having strained relationship with the
complainant and hence, she set him ablaze, after
some quarrel with him.
(8) At this stage, we may refer to the evidence
of PW-6, Dr.Virendra Kanaiyalal, who is examined
at Exh.40. This witness refers to the burn injury
suffered by the complainant. In his cross-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/505/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
examination, it is categorically elicited that if
any person, who pours kerosene on himself and
sets himself ablaze, the injuries suffered by the
deceased can occur.
(9) PW-8, the Investigating Officer, has also in
his cross-examination deposed that as per the
evidence, which is recorded from the neighbours,
it had emerged that the complainant had tried to
commit suicide and the incident has happened
inside the bathroom.
(10) We have also noticed that during the pendency
of the criminal proceedings, agreement of divorce
was also executed between accused No.4 and the
complainant-deceased on 01.03.1994, which
contained specific clause that the complainant
would see that all the accused are acquitted from
the present offence. Very vital aspect, which has
been noticed by us and also by the trial Court is
that at the time of incident, one of the
neighbours namely, Jivanlal was present however,
he was the only independent witness of the
incident however, he has not been examined by the
prosecution.
(11) Thus, no independent witness has been
examined in the case and the entire prosecution
case is premised on the complaint and the
evidence of the doctor. The trial Court, after
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/505/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
examining threadbare evidence, has recorded a
specific finding that it is very doubtful that
the accused No.2, who was a Government Servant,
was present at the scene of offence on that day.
That accused No.1 is not staying at the place
where the incident has occurred and his place is
about 4 kms away. The accused No.3 was the
mother-in-law of the complainant and her role is
not coming out in the evidence however, she has
passed away and the appeal is abated apropos her.
The evidence also reveals that prior to the
incident, the complainant was already staying
separate from the accused No.4 and on the
contrary, evidence reveals that when the incident
was occurred, she had tried to save the
complainant and in her statement, recorded under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, she has stated that she got burn injuries,
while saving the complainant. The medical
certificate also in this regard proves that she
has received burn injuries. The panchas have also
not supported the case of the prosecution with
regard to the container, which was used for
pouring kerosene.
(12) Thus, on an over all appreciation of the
evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to
bring home the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/505/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
(13) Hence, we do not find that the judgement of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court is perverse
or illegal.
(14) Accordingly, the appeal fails and hence, the
same stands dismissed. Record and Proceedings to
be sent back.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
NVMEWADA/1
