Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Thakore Natuji @ Manaji Keshaji on 28 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1017 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
THAKORE NATUJI @ MANAJI KESHAJI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
Mr. Bhargav Pandya, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 28/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is 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,
Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Sessions Case No. 99/2006 on 31.12.2007, whereby, the
learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of
IPC.
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 is the father-in-law, accused no. 2 is
the husband, accused no. 3 is the uncle and accused no. 4
is the sister-in-law of deceased Ashaben who was married to
the accused no. 2 about three years prior to the incident.
The complainant - Babuji Varvaji Thakur residing at
Davada, Taluka Visnagar filed a complaint on 18.02.2005
stating that about nine months prior to the incident, his
daughter had come to her parental home and told him that
her husband did not like her and was physically assaulting
and harassing her and the other in-laws were instigating
her husband and they all would mentally and physically
harass her. On the last Tuesday at around 11.00 am, the
accused no. 1 came to take his daughter back to her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
matrimonial home and as the next day was a Wednesday
and he did not want to send her on a Wednesday, he sent
her on the same day with the accused no. 1. At around
03.00 am, his relatives came in a jeep and told him that his
daughter was burnt and they immediately went to Norta
village where a number of people had gathered and his
daughter was lying dead on the floor and she was burnt.
That her cremation was done at Norta village and later on,
he came to know that the incident had occurred between
07.00 pm to 08.00 pm in the house and he had a doubt that
as the accused were harassing his daughter, she committed
suicide and the complaint was filed before the Patan Taluka
Police Station which was registered at I - C.R. No. 26 of
2005 under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the IPC.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patan and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Patan as per
the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure
and the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 99/2006.
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. A charge at Exh. 8 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 9, 10, 11 and 12, wherein, the accused denied the
contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the
prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to
bring home the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCE
Sr. No. PW Name of the witness Exh.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the
further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein,
the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on
record. After the arguments of the learned APP and the
learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned
Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was
pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled
against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement
and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court
has not considered the oral and documentary evidences in
proper perspective and has erred in holding that the
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubts. The complainant has fully supported the case of the
prosecution and the caste certificate of the complainant is
produced on record. The learned Trial Court has not
considered the evidences produced on record and even
though there is nothing on record that the incident has not
occurred, the learned Trial Court has disbelieved the case of
the prosecution. The prosecution has successfully
established the case against the respondents 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 respondent are improper, perverse and
bad in law and hence, the impugned judgement and order
must be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the
appellant State. Though served, none has appeared for the
respondents either in person or through an advocate.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
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 complainant has fully
supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned
judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged
this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the
respondent guilty for the offences.
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 regarding the scope of
interference in 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 Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
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".
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
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.
7. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the
prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable
doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re
appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after
re appreciation, 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.
8. 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
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/1017/2008 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
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]
9. In light of the above settled principle of law, the
evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Babuji Varvaji at Exh. 17
and the witness is the complainant who has narrated the
facts as mentioned in the complaint which is produced at
Exh. 18. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that his
daughter was married three years prior to the incident and
when his daughter had come to his house, she resided with
him for about eight months. That he had sent his daughter
as per the customs along with the accused no. 1 and they
do not send the daughter to the matrimonial house on a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
Wednesday and as the next day was a Wednesday, he sent
his daughter on the same day that the accused no. 1 came
to take her. That his daughter had told her mother about
the harassment to her and his wife had told him and she
had never complained about any harassment by her in-laws
and the accused no. 2, his son-in-law has a handicap in his
leg and is differently abled.
9.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Keshaben
Babuji Thakor at Exh. 19 and the witness is the mother of
the deceased who has supported the case of the
prosecution and has stated that after the news of her
daughter, she did not go to Norta village. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that her husband had filed the
complaint and he had returned the next morning at 07.00
am. That her daughter was at her house for about eight
months prior to the incident and only she knew about the
harassment by the accused.
9.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Majulaben
Babuji Thakor at Exh. 20 and the witness is the sister of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
the deceased who has supported the case of the
prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused the witness has stated she was
married five years before the marriage of her sister Asha
and she was residing mainly in her matrimonial home. That
when the accused no. 1 came to take her sister to her
matrimonial home, she was not present and her sister Asha
was at her parental home for around nine months prior to
the incident.
9.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Maganbhai
Valabai Parmar at Exh. 23 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the
procedure that he had undertaken during investigation.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness has stated that he had
investigated about the person who had given the first
intimation about the incident at Bhandu village and he
found that no person by the name of Ramaji Babuji resided
in Bandhu village. The telephone that had come to Taluka
Police Station had come from Railway Colony, Bhandu
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
village from the residence of Ghelabhai Shankarbhai
Rathod and he had recorded the statement of Ghelabhai
Shankarbhai who had stated that no telephone call was
made from his house. That when he reached the house of
the complainant at Davada village at around 06.00 pm, the
complainant or his were not present. During investigation,
he did not find any evidence that the deceased was married
for three years and it was also found that the complainant
and his relatives had gone to Norta village and they were
present for the cremation ceremony of the deceased. During
investigation, it was also found that before the deceased
came to her matrimonial home at Norta village for eight to
nine months, she was residing at her parental home and
the accused no. 2 is differently abled and has 40%
disability in his leg.
10. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the incident has occurred on 17.02.2005 and
the complaint has been filed on 18.02.2005 by the
complainant Babuji Varvaji Thakur - the father of the
deceased. It has emerged that prior to 17.02.2005, for eight
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
to nine months, the deceased was residing in her parental
home and on 17.02.2005, the accused no. 1 came to take
the deceased back to her parental home and as the next
day was a Wednesday and the complainant did not want to
send his daughter to her matrimonial home on a
Wednesday, he immediately sent her on the same day. After
the deceased reached her matrimonial home, the incident
has occurred and there is no iota of evidence that the
accused had immediately preceding the incident, met the
deceased and whether any quarrel had occurred or whether
the accused were present at the place of incident. There is
nothing on record to suggest that the accused were
harassing the deceased and the reason for which she was
at her parental home for eight to nine months prior to the
incident and the nature of harassment has not come on
record. There is no iota of evidence that the accused were
present at the place of incident and they had incited,
goaded or aided in any manner the deceased to commit
suicide.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
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 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.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the earned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1017/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
Track Court, Patan in Sessions Case No. 99/2006 on
31.12.2007, 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)
VASIM S. SAIYED
