Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mahendrasinh @ Jigo Natvarbhaigohel on 27 February, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2225/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2225 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MAHENDRASINH @ JIGO NATVARBHAIGOHEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 27/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal has been filed by the State challenging the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.6.2009 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.5,
Nadiad in Sessions Case no.74 of 2008.
2. The charge was framed under Sections 498A, 306 read
with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as "the IPC"). The charge states that the deceased
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2225/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
had married accused no.1-Mahendrasinh @ Jigo Natwarbhai
Gohel and the matrimonial relation was of 3 years. After about
one year of marriage, the complainant alleged that all the
accused had started harassing the accused on the ground that
she was not well-versed with the domestic work and when she
conceived and was with five months' foetus, they started making
false allegations regarding her character, and that mental and
physical harassment has resulted into cruelty and that when it
was unbearable, on 13.4.2008 at about 09 O'Clock, she
consumed poison at Khodiyarpara Chhapra and committed
suicide and therefore, the charge for abetment to commit suicide
was framed.
3. Ms. Asmita Patel, learned APP has submitted that the Trial
Court judgment is erroneous and contrary to law. The learned
Judge has failed to appreciate the marriage span to draw
presumption and when the witness had proved by way of their
testimony the cruelty suffered by the deceased, then, the learned
Judge was required to draw presumption under Section 113A of
the Indian Evidence Act. The learned APP has submitted that the
cause of death was consumption of the poisonous substance
andosalfa, which could be identified through the postmortem.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2225/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
The learned APP has submitted that the offence becomes very
serious as the deceased was having a foetus in her womb and
she ended her life along with the future child. This very aspect
itself proves that it was unbearable physical and mental torture,
which she suffered only because of the quarrel regarding
household work and further allegation that she was pregnant by
way of infidelity.
4. The learned APP has submitted that the deposition of the
witness-complainant - Khodabhai Chhaganbhai Parmar clarifies
the cruelty suffered by the daughter. The witness - Bharatbhai
Khodabhai Sodha Parmar, brother of the deceased has referred
to quarrels, which often took place because of the household
work. The deceased was beaten up and was subjected to
physical and mental cruelty. On 12.4.2008, the accused
Mahendra-husband came to the house and made allegation
against the daughter who was pregnant alleging that the child
was of one Lalabhai who was often making phone calls to her.
5. The witness - Sonalben Bharatbhai Sodha Parmar was also
examined to prove that the deceased had informed her about the
quarrels and the beatings and further about the physical and
mental cruelty. The learned APP has submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2225/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
harassment and the cruelty doubting her character, had led to
such unavoidable circumstances for the deceased that she had
no other alternative, but to commit suicide. The learned APP
further submitted that the witness - Shanabhai Lakhabhai
Sodha Parmar has also corroborated the evidence of the
witnesses. The witness - Ranchhodbhai Hathibhai has deposed
about the fact that he was a witness, where the father-in-law of
the deceased had come to take her back and given assurance
that they would not harass her from then. However, even after
sending the deceased back, the harassment continued. The
learned APP has submitted that the witness - Laljibhai
Pratapbhai Sodha Parmar, against whom there is an allegation of
having relation with the deceased, has categorically deposed that
all the allegations were false and baseless and further the
mother of the deceased Surajben Khodabhai Sodha Parmar has
also given the details of the mental harassment to her with
regard to household domestic work and also of the allegation
against her character when her daughter was four months
pregnant.
6. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Rathin P.
Raval has submitted that the marriage span of 3 years cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2225/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
made as a conclusive evidence to draw presumption under
Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act for alleging abetment of
suicide. Mr. Raval has submitted that whole circumstances of
the case is required to be examined to consider the case for the
charge of cruelty and abetment of suicide. Learned advocate Mr.
Raval has relied upon the judgment in the case of Naresh Kumar
v. State of Haryana, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 573 to support his
argument for the provision under Section 113A of the Indian
Evidence Act and Section 306 of IPC. Mr. Raval has submitted
that now it has become well-settled by way of judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court that to convict a person under Section 306 of
the IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.
Mr. Raval has submitted that there is no direct evidence of the
person alleging harassment. The span of 3 years of marriage
shows that initial first year was very smooth. Had there been any
cause for not knowing the household work, then that could have
been from the very beginning, while that is not the case here. Mr.
Raval has submitted that the prosecution refers to the allegation
that the deceased was having relation with Laljibhai Pratapbhai
Sodha Parmar who had been examiend as PW7 at Exh.28. Mr.
Raval has submitted that the cause of suicide was not the
present accused, but the parents themselves and PW7 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2225/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
cousin brother of the deceased who had beaten Laljibhai
Pratapbhai Sodha Parmar. Referring to the evidence of Laljibhai
Pratapbhai Sodha Parmar who had admitted of his love relation
with the deceased Shobhanaben in his evidence in chief and has
also admitted that he was often seeing and meeting the
deceased. After the marriage, he states that he has stopped his
relation. Mr. Raval, referring to the evidence, stated that cousin
brother of the deceased i.e. the nephew of the complainant
actually were doubting him and had taken him to task and
therefore, the witness had left the place and had started leaving
with Tandel Maganbhai Devabhai. Mr. Raval has also drawn
attention of the Court that the reference has been made about
the mobile phone and the police had called to record the
statement of the witness since the police was having the
knowledge of his relations with the deceased Shobhanaben. As
per the evidence, one or two days prior to the death of
Shobhanaben, he had gone to stay at Tandel's Village. The very
fact itself is very clear that there was some dispute between the
deceased and the family members and the cousins of the
deceased that had led to a situation, where the deceased had no
other alternative, but to commit suicide and thus, stated that
the instigation was from the parental side. Mr. Raval has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2225/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
submitted that on the day prior of committing suicide, the
witness was called upon at the house of Shobhanaben to inquire
the fact, whether he was having relations with the deceased and
he has also admitted in the cross-examination that since the love
relation between the witness - Laljibhai Pratapbhai Sodha
Parmar and the deceased got disclosed, the family members of
the deceased had beaten him. After visiting their house, he had
left the Village since he was under fear that the family members
of Shobhanaben would beat him.
7. Heard Ms. Asmita Patel, learned APP and learned advocate
Mr. Raval, perused the judgment of the learned Trial Court
Judge. The learned Judge had made threadbare examination of
the evidence of the witnesses. The complainant, though states
about mental and physical cruelty, but he is not a direct witness
to any statement given by the deceased Shobhanaben. The fact
of cruelty he states was informed to him by his wife. Thus, this
very fact does not get corroborated as direct evidence from the
complainant. According to the complainant, on 8.4.2008, six
months' prior, there was a quarrel between the parents-in-law
and her daughter Shobhanaben and therefore, she had come to
their house, but she has not informed the cause of the quarrel to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2225/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
them and when the father-in-law of the daughter had come to
take her back, the person who had facilitated the marriage,
Shakarabhai was also present there and in his presence, witness
states that the assurance was given that she would not be
harassed thereafter. It requires to be noted that Shakara
Desaibhai has not been examined as a witness. The further
evidence refers that on 12.4.2008, accused no.1 and his brother-
in-law - Dilip had come in a rickshaw and had got excited to
inform that there were phones coming on the mobile of the
deceased and the evidence shows that husband and the brother-
in-law had after settlement, proposed to take the deceased home
back, but the deceased had denied to return back to the
matrimonial house. The evidence, at this juncture, of Laljibhai
Pratapbhai Sodha Parmar - PW7 bears much importance since
he states that on the earlier day of the death of the deceased, he
was called at the house of Shobhanaben to inquire about their
relation and he had admitted of his relation with the deceased -
Shobhanaben and there he was beaten by the cousins of the
deceased Shobhanaben. It appears that Shobhanaben was taken
back at the matrimonial home by the husband and on the very
next day i.e. 13.4.2008, she consumed poison and committed
suicide. The evidence of harassment in the form of cruelty does
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2225/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
not get proved since it could not be believed through the
evidence of the witnesses that the deceased was harassed for not
knowing household work. The evidence states that for a period of
one year, the matrimonial life was easy and smooth. It was only
when she was receiving phone calls that the dispute arose and
such fact gets proved itself by the evidence of Laljibhai
Pratapbhai Sodha Parmar, which substantiates the fact that the
witness was in relation with the deceased and on the day earlier
of committing suicide, PW7 was called at the deceased's house
and when the relationship was disclosed in front of all, PW7 was
beaten. The statement of PW7 was recorded by the police and
therefore, such facts could come on record. Merely because
death of the wife has occurred within a period of seven years of
the marriage, the accused cannot be automatically held guilty for
the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC by
employing presumption under Section 113A of the Indian
Evidence Act. The circumstance, which has been brought on
record by way of examining PW7, itself proves that the deceased
had committed suicide not because of any other fact, which
could be considered as a cruelty rather when the evidence shows
that the husband and the brother-in-law had come there to take
the deceased back, but that was the day, where the relation of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2225/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
the deceased with PW7 got disclosed in front of all and that was
the reason, which becomes apparent on record for the deceased
to commit suicide. The evidence of PW7 cannot be ignored as he
has stated about his relation with the deceased and instead of
knowing all these facts, the husband was ready to take her back
to the matrimonial house. The circumstance, thus, which has
been brought on record by the evidence of PW7, rebuts the
presumption. The learned Trial Court Judge has given his
reasoning while appreciating the evidence on record and this
Court does not find any illegality or perversity to the appreciation
of the evidence and findings.
8. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the
judgment passed by the learned Trial Court acquitting the
accused. The appeal thus stands dismissed.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
