Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Manda Arjan Aahir on 28 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2045 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANDA ARJAN AAHIR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHIL C DATTANI for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
NON BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1,2,3,4,5
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 28/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section
378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhaliya (hereinafter
referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 133 of
2007 on 06-07-2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court by giving the
benefit of doubt has accquitted the respondents for the offence
punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
(hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short).
1.1] The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as
they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and
brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as
under:
2.1] The accused No. 1 Maldabhai Arjanbhai Ahir had some
dispute with the deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai and he had given an
application in the police station against the accused, which was known to
the accused, and the accused were threatening him to withdraw the
complaint or to leave the village and go elsewhere. That as the accused
were frequently threatening and physically and mentally harassing the
deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai, he got fed-up and on 09.09.2003, some
time before 19.30 hours, jumped into Falku river at Bhanwar and
committed suicide. That the accused had abetted the suicide of the
deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai and his wife, Satiben @ Santokhben wife
of Hameerbhai Kanabhai, Ambaliya Ahir filed a complaint on 16.09.2003
before the Bhanwar Police Station, which was registered at I-C.R.No.95
of 2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the
IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected
witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of
investigation the police filed chargesheet before the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Khambhaliya and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Khambhaliya as per the provisions of
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered
Sessions Case No. 133 of 2003.
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 at Exh. 7 was framed
against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 8 to 12, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge
and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4] The prosecution produced thirteen oral evidences and twenty five
documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and
after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at
Exh.65, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused
denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and
stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the
accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment
and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges
leveled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order
of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly
stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the
learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination,
nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case
has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondent and the
judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any
basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the
respondents are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya, for the appellant State.
Though served the respondents, none has appeared either in person or
through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgement and order of
acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on
record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya has taken this Court through
the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and
submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and
evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated direct
and indirect evidence in the case. The complainant has supported the
case of the prosecution, which is corroborated by the deposition of the
medical officer and the witnesses have identified the accused before the
learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully prove the case beyond
reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor
contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of
incident. The order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper
and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal
of the appellant must be allowed.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it
would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has
observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
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..
7. As the appeal pertains to a case under Section 306 of the IPC, it
would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs The State of Madhya Pradhesh
Criminal Appeal No. 221/2025 (@ SLP(Cr) No. 11868/2023) passed on
17th January, 2025 which is as under:
11. Section 306 of the IPC reads 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."
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
"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."
As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the
ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the
commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who
Firstly - 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp
(3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die'
and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:-
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the
heat of the moment between quarreling people. Nothing serious is
expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the
requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be
carried out in all events. ..."
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8
SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under
Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107
IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the
suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or
to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for
attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1
SCC 707, this Court held as under:-
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before
holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the
court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the
case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find
out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had
left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It
is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide
there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is
not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC
there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said
offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of
suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by
doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore,
the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must
be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be
convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar
vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as
under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined
different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as
under: (SCC p. 629)
"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
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."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no
evidence and material available on record where-from an inference of
the appellant accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema
(the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided
by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section
306 IPC 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 this act must have been intended to push
the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
[Emphasis supplied]
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in
acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal.
The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the
learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not
proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re
appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appre-
ciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view,
there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
9. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the
evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the
accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1
Hameerbhai Kanabhai Karavadra at Exh.17 and the witness is the panch
witness of the panchnama produced at Exh.18 and 20, whereby, the dead
body of the deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai was found from the Falku
river at Bhanwar and the panchnama was drawn, and from the pocket of
the deceased, a stamp paper of Rs.10/- with some writing was seized, and
some water from the river was taken in a glass bottle and seized by the
police during investigation. The witness has not supported the case of the
prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined at
length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the
prosecution has come on record.
9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2
Arjanbhhai Samat Chauhan Satwara at Exh. 21, and the witness is the
Panch witness of the panchnama produced at Exh.18, whereby the dead
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
body of the deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai was recovered. The witness
has not supported the case of the prosecution.
9.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Aalabhai
Kachrabhai Vaghela at Exh.24 and the witness is a social worker, who
has stated that on 09.09.2003, while he was at Bhanwar, at around 7.00
pm, one person came and told him that there is a dead body of a person in
the Falku river of Bhanwar and the person had drowned and he went to
the Bhanwar Police Station and informed the police, and went with the
police to the place of incident. A number of persons had gathered there,
and a swimmer was called and the dead body was taken out, and from the
pant pocket, a plastic bag was found, in which, there was some money
and one written stamp paper, which is produced at Exh.19.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate of the
accused, the witness has stated that he had orally informed the police
about the incident and he had gone along with the police in the police
jeep. When he reached the place, there were a number of persons, who
had already gathered there, and while they were inspecting the dead body,
he was standing nearby, and at that time it had become dark. That the
dead body was being inspected in torch light and in the light of the jeep
and he does not know what the police did to the plastic bag, which was
tied with a rubber band.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
9.3 The prosecution has examination the Prosecution Witness No. 4
Meraman Visa Karavadra at Exh.25 and the witness has stated that he has
50 vigas agricultural land in Bhanwar Taluka, Navagam, and about 3
years ago, while he was at his field, and was sitting to have his lunch, a
person came near him and he asked him if he wanted to have some food
and he gave him some food to eat. The person did not identify himself,
but he had worn white clothes, and he had his lunch and went away. The
witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been
declared hostile and during the cross-examination, nothing to support the
case of the prosecution has come on record.
9.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Kailash
Parshottambhai Hindocha at Exh.26, and the witness is the Stamp
Vendor, License No. 4/94. The witness has stated that on 5-9-2003, he
had sold a stamp paper of Rs.10 to Ahir Hameerbhai Kanabhai residing at
Jhampur, at Serial No. 1833, and he had taken the thumb impression of
the person. The witness has identified the stamp paper produced at
Exh.19, and has stated that after some time, the person came back and
asked him to type something, but he told him to come after some time,
and in the afternoon, the person came to his office, and he was sent to the
top floor, where the computer was kept.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
accused, the witness has stated that the person did not have any stamp
paper dated 03-09-2003, and he does not know whether the stamp paper
dated 09-03-2003 was given by his brother. That the police did not show
him the stamp paper, which the computer typed, and a number of persons
come to purchase stamps, and if the person states his name, he would
trust on him and write the name on the stamp paper.
9.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Sohil
Mansukhlal Parmar at Exh.27, and the witness is the Computer Operator
who had typed on the stamp paper, and he has stated that he was working
as a part-time computer operator in the office of Hiteshbhai Hindocha. On
5-9-2003, a person came with a blank stamp paper of Rs.10/- and a blank
paper on which something was written, and asked him to type the written
material on the stamp paper, and accordingly he typed it on the stamp
paper, which is produced at Exh.19. The witness has stated that in his
presence, the person did not affix his signature or his thumb impression.
During the cross-examination by the learned APP, the witness has
stated that he cannot identify the handwriting, which were on the paper,
that was, brought by the person and in the document at Exh.19, it is
written LTH of Hamer Kana, but in his presence nobody had affixed the
thumb impression. That, as he is working in the office of an advocate, a
number of persons come for computer work and he cannot identify them.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
9.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Dr.
Sanjeevkumar Siran Nathusingh Chaudhary at Exh.29, and the witness is
the Medical Officer, who was a tutor in the Forensic Medicine
Department, and has conducted the postmortem of the deceased Hameer
Kanabhai on 10-09-2003. The witness has produced the postmortem note
at Exh.30 and has stated that there were no visible injuries seen over the
body, and the cause of death was kept pending as the viscera was taken
for chemical analysis and sternum was taken for diatom test. That, after
the FSL test reports were received, the final cause of death was due to
drowning in water.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the body was decomposed, and the
probable cause of time of death was not mentioned in the postmortem
note. The witness has also stated that he had seen the FSL report for the
first time in the Court, and the police did not ask him for the final cause
of death certificate. That the death of the deceased could be accidental,
suicidal or homicidal.
9.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Satiben
@ Santokben wife of Hameerbhai Kanabhai Ambaliya at Exh.35 and the
witness has stated that her husband and Mesurbhai had a dispute about a
camel cart and her husband had filed applications against him. That the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
accused No. 1 Mandabhai Arjanbhai Ahir was friends with Mesurbhai
and the accused No. 1 had stopped talking to her husband. That one year
prior to the incident, her husband had sold the camel cart and taken a mill
for grinding grains and placed it in Jampur village but the business was
not going very well and her husband had wound up the business and
come back home and was doing labour work. That there was a dispute
with the accused No. 1 Mandabhai about the agricultural land and her
husband had told her to pack the luggage and he would bring a tractor on
rent. That he had also filed a case for protection in the Bhanwar Court
and the accused No. 1 had threatened him to withdraw the case or he
would kill him, but she was waiting for her husband to come with the
tractor and he had telephoned her and told her to keep the cow at home
and they would fill the luggage and go away that he did not return and
she was informed to go to the Bhanwar Government Hospital where she
saw the dead body of her husband. That all the accused had got together
and killed her husband as they did not want him to live in the village
when she had filed the complaint which was produced at Exh.36.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that she did not mention in the complaint
that the accused No. 1 had a dispute with her husband and there are no
witness to the accused threatening her. That when she went to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
Bhanwar Hospital, she became unconscious.
9.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9
Devabhai Kanabhai Ambaliya at Exh 37 and the witness is the brother of
the deceased, who has supported the case of the prosecution and has
stated that all the accused had thrown his brother into the river and killed
him.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that his brother did not inform him the
names of the persons, who were threatening him and he did not file any
application before the police. That no panchnama was drawn in his
presence at Bhanwar Hospital and when they went to Bhanwar Hospital
to identify the dead body, they did not file any complaint.
9.9 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 10
Lakhmanbhai Jinabhai Pindaria at Exh. 38 and Prosecution Witness No.
11 Keshurbhai Jinabhai, Pindaria at Exh.39 and both the witnesses are the
nephews of the deceased.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witnesses have stated that they had known from other
persons that their uncle had some dispute with the accused No. 1.
9.10 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 12
Kalubhai Khodabhai Makwana, ASI, Dhrol Police Station at Exh.41 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
the witness is the PSO, who was on duty on 17-09-2003 at the Bhanwar
Police Station and he has stated that on 17-09-2003, accidental death No.
23 of 2003 under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was
recorded by PSI, Mr. J. J. Pandya and the complainant had filed the
complaint, which was entered in the station diary at Entry No. 3 at 2.30
pm. The offence was registered at I-C.R. No. 95 of 2003 under Sections
306, and 114 of the IPC and the investigation was forwarded to PSI, Mr.
J. J. Pandya.
9.11 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 13
Jaikumar Kantilal Pandya at Exh. 47 and the witness is the Investigating
Officer, who has narrated in detail all the procedure undertaken by him
during investigation.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he did not collect any evidence as to
who had drafted the writings on the stamp paper at Exh. 19 and on the
basis of the application filed at Exh.52, a chapter case was filed. That he
has not recorded the statements of any persons regarding the application
at Exh. 52 and he has not collected the documents of the chapter case and
does not know what has finally happened in that case. That there are no
eyewitnesses, who have seen the deceased jumping into the water and the
incident had occurred during the monsoon. That the deceased had a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
dispute with Mesur Uka, who had a camel cart and during investigation, it
was not found that any complaint was filed against him by the deceased.
That during investigation it was also not found that the deceased had filed
any application in the Bhanwar Court for protection. That when the
complaint of the complainant was being recorded, her brother-in-law
Devabhi Kanabhai was present and he has not recorded the statement of
Mesur Uka during investigation. That the complainant did not say that the
accused No. 1 had threatened her husband to withdraw the case.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution,
as per the case of the prosecution, the accused were threatening the
deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai to withdraw the case and hence he was
harassed and he had committed suicide by jumping in the Falku river of
Bhanwar. In the entire evidence of the prosecution, the complainant or
the relatives have not made any allegations against any of the accused and
all the allegations and the disputes were with Mesur Uka and the
Investigating Officer has not recorded his statement. The complainant has
stated that because of the dispute with Mesur Uka, the accused No. 1 had
stopped talking to the deceased and there is no iota of evidence that any
of the accused had met the deceased immediately prior to the incident.
The evidence, that has emerged on record, is that the deceased was
uncertain about the occupation that he has to do and he had earlier taken a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
camel cart but had dispute with Mesur Uka and had sold the camel cart
and had bought a mill for grinding grains but that business too was not
successful. There is no iota of evidence that any of the accused had met
the deceased at any time prior to the incident and as far as the application
against the accused is concerned, a chapter case was already filed but the
Investigating Officer has not investigated about the same. There is
nothing on record to suggest that any of the accused had incited, coded,
urged or abetted the accused to commit suicide and the ingredients of
section 306 of the IPC are not made out in the evidence of the
prosecution.
11. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Mahendra
Awase (supra), 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 extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the charges
leveled against him. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2045/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
of extending benefit of doubt and 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.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhaliya
in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2007 on 06-07-2009 on 11.12.2007, is
hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to
the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
