Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Devsibhai Savabhai on 8 January, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/845/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 845 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DEVSIBHAI SAVABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PM LAKHANI(1326) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MRS R P LAKHANI(3811) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 08/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)
1. The present appeal is filed under Section
378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short "the Cr.P.C.") against the judgement
and order passed in Sessions Case No.109 of 1997
dated 25.03.2003 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Jamnagar,
wherein and whereby all the accused were
acquitted for the offences punishable under
Section 498A, 304B, 306, 201 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC").
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/845/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is
that on 16.12.1996, the deceased committed
suicide by jumping into a well due to mental and
physical harassment meted out to her by the
accused in view of demand of dowry. The F.I.R.
for the same has been registered on 18.03.1997
i.e. after much delay of 3 months.
3. Learned APP Mr.Sharma has submitted that the
judgement and order of acquittal is contrary to
law, evidence on record and principles of natural
justice. He has submitted that the learned Trial
Court Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence
of PW-Dahiben Ramabhai at Exh.13 (mother of the
victim), PW-Kadviben Ramabhai and PW-Radhuben
Ramabhai at Exh.14 and Exh.15 (sisters of the
victim) and PW-Naranbhai Ramabhai at Exh.16
(brother of the victim respectively). It is
further submitted that the learned Trial Judge
has failed to appreciate that there were direct
and indirect evidence connecting the accused with
the commission of offence.
3.1 Learned APP Mr.Sharma has further submitted
that since cohabitation of the deceased with the
accused is only of 2.5 years, presumption under
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is
required to be drawn in the present matter. He
has submitted that the allegation is of demand of
dowry, which has led to death and where the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/845/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
deceased had taken last step to end her life by
jumping into a well. He has submitted that the
allegation of the prosecution witness is that the
accused were subjecting the deceased to physical
and mental cruelty by stating that she has not
brought sufficient dowry from her parental house.
It is submitted that further allegation is also
made under Section 201 of the IPC, which would
amount to destruction of evidence since last
rites of the dead-body of the deceased was
performed by the family members of the accused.
Thus, he has urged that the judgement and order
of the acquittal may be quashed and set aside.
4. The facts of the case, as established on
record, are that the marriage had actually taken
place 8 years prior to the incident, while facts
detailed out that it was only by customary way
for bringing daughter-in-law to the matrimonial
house, that she had lastly stayed with the
accused for 2.5 years. A general allegation is of
abusing the deceased on the ground that she was
not well-worsed with the domestic work however,
there is no specific evidence on record to state
that a specific amount was demanded by way of
dowry. The fact also gets diluted in view of the
evidence that after marriage for about 6 years,
she was at her parental home and during that
period, nothing has been brought on record about
any such dowry demand.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/845/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
5. A clear fact is that the incident of jumping
of the deceased into a well and committing
suicide is of 16.12.1996, while the F.I.R. has
been registered after much delay of 3 months i.e.
on 18.03.1997. An inordinate delay in filing the
F.I.R. has not been explained by the prosecution
witness. The fact also comes to notice that the
parents were informed that their daughter has
jumped into the well and thereafter, they had
come to the place but because of the darkness,
body of the deceased could not be recovered from
the well and thus, the parents were instructed to
remain present next day for procuring body from
the well however, they failed to remain present
and thereafter, last rites of the dead-body of
the deceased was performed at the matrimonial
home Hence, there would not be any reason to
conclude that the accused have hurriedly disposed
of the material evidence as dead-body of the
deceased. The evidence also comes before the
Court that the accused have sent representative
to the parents of the deceased requesting them to
attend the last rites of the deceased but they
themselves had not attended the funeral. If there
had been any instigation or abetment to commit
suicide by the accused in view of dowry demand,
the parents, at the very first instance only
would have informed the police, but no such
complaint was filed before the Police Station and
it appears that after due deliberation, on a very
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/845/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
belated stage i.e. on 18.03.1997, the F.I.R. came
to be filed.
6. The learned Trial Court Judge has appreciated
the fact that no explanation has been comeforth
for the delay of almost about 3 months and 2 days
in giving the F.I.R. Such delay cannot be
considered as ordinary. The Investigating Officer
(PW-6) has also not explained the cause of delay
in filing the F.I.R. The learned Trial Court
Judge has drawn point of determination for the
trial. The allegation of physical and mental
harassment has to satisfy the elements of Section
498A read with Section 114 of the IPC however,
the same could not be proved since the evidence
shows that such allegations are general in
nature. Further, no evidence could be found on
record to show that the accused had instigated
the deceased for suicide for the amount of dowry,
and in fact, the evidence is established on
record by way of witness that neither such demand
of any material thing or amount was made by the
accused nor at the time of deciding marriage any
such talks regarding dowry was made directly or
indirectly.
7. It would be appropriate to refer to the
evidence of PW-Radhuben Ramabhai at Exh.15, who
is the sister of the deceased. She has very
categorically stated and confirmed that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/845/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
accused had never demanded any money or any
material thing from them.
8. Delay in filing the F.I.R. itself shows that
no such case was there or no such incident took
place, which can cause death of the deceased. The
parents have failed to immediately file of the
complaint and no further evidence is coming on
record, which has rightly been appreciated by the
learned Trial Court Judge, of any demand of
dowry.
9. The fact of mental and physical cruelty does
not come with any specific instance, which could
show that the deceased was subject to such
cruelty which instigated her to take ultimate
step of taking her own life. The averment
regarding cruelty appears to be a simple
assertion, which has not been proved. The learned
Trial Court Judge has rightly appreciated the
records and concluded with acquittal of the
accused.
10. At this stage, we may refer to the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Vs.
State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 280, wherein the
Apex Court has held thus:
"... ... ...The powers of the High Court in an appeal
from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and
reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 arid 379
Cr.P.C, are as extensive as in any appeal against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/845/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is
desirable that the High Court should give proper
weight and consideration to the view of the Trial
Court with regard to the credibility of the witness,
the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of
any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in
justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge
who had the advantage of seeing the witness. No doubt
it is settled law that if the main grounds on which
the Court below has based its order acquitting the
accused, are reasonable and plausible, and the same
cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or.
demolished, the High Court should not disturb the
order of acquittal. ... ... ..."
11. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the judgement and order of
acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court
Judge. We do not find any infirmity in the
impugned judgement. The acquittal of the accused
is reasonable.
12. While appreciating the evidence on record,
the appeal stands dismissed.
Registry to send back the Record and
proceedings to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
NVMEWADA/S-1-2
