Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs T.Koli Ghanshyambhai Lalji Bhai on 19 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/38/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 38 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
T.KOLI GHANSHYAMBHAI LALJI BHAI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHAN N SHAH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,4,5
MR DIVYANG A RAMANI(7180) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,4,5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 19/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)
1.The State has challenged the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 09.10.2003 in Sessions Case No.29 of
2000, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/38/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
Surendranagar. The trial was against five of the
accused under Sections 302, 498A and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohan N.
Shah has tendered before this Court the verification
Report of the Police Inspector, Chuda Police Station,
District Surendranagar, alongwith a copy of the Death
Certificate which shows that the respondent No.3 -
Laljibhai Bhalabhai Koli and respondent No.4 -
Champaben Lajibhai Koli have died. The report is
ordered to be taken on record. Hence, the present
Appeal qua the respondents No.3 and 4 stands abated.
3.The deceased complainant-Ranjanben had married
Shankarbhai Laljibhai Koli who is arraigned as accused
No.5, one and a half year prior to the incident. As per
the complaint, it is alleged that 10-11 days prior to the
incident, the deceased had gone to her parental home
and her father-in-law had come to take her back. On
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/38/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
14.07.1998, in the afternoon, the deceased had come to
her village at her matrimonial house at Village Jobada
and was eating food in her room. At that time, the
mother-in-law-Champaben had asked the deceased to
take rice for her husband who was in the field at Village
Salala. The deceased stated that she would go later on
as she was hungry and that caused verbal altercation
between the deceased and mother-in-law. After some
time, the deceased was on her way to Village Salala to
give rice to her husband, the husband asked the
deceased as to why she had come there and that he
had no work with her and also questioned her as to
why she went against his mother. It is further alleged
that the husband gave kick and fist blows and
thereafter, she returned to her parental home. On
15.07.1998 the maternal uncle and other family
members met the deceased and left her back at the
matrimonial home. It is stated that a settlement was
arrived at between the matrimonial family members
and paternal family members. Thereafter, in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/38/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
evening at about 5.00 clock, at Village Jobada at
Shivabhai's house, the maternal family members had
gone to have tea, at that time, the complainant was
sitting in her room. It is alleged that the deceased's
elder brothers-in-law Ghanshyambhai Laljibhai and
Mansukhbhai Laljibhai, father-in-law Laljibhai
Bhalabhai, mother-in-law Champaben Laljibhai and
the husband-Shankarbhai Laljibhai Koli came in the
room. It is alleged that in the hands of both the elder
brothers-in-law, there was a kerosene filled in a
'kathrot' (a large shallow, wooden plate or trencher,
often used for kneading dough), the father-in-law and
mother-in-law instigated them to pour kerosene, the
elder brothers-in-law poured kerosene on her and the
deceased was set ablaze with a match stick.
4.During the course of trial, 12 witnesses were examined.
The parents of the deceased-Ranjanben had not
supported the case of the prosecution. The incident is
alleged to have taken place on the day when the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/38/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
members of the matrimonial side and the paternal side
had gathered to settle the issue. The deceased actually
had gone back at the paternal home. It also appears
that the deceased was not ready to stay alongwith the
matrimonial family members. The members of the
paternal side were present there in the village and they
had gone to the house of Shivabhai Virambhai for tea
and during the course of the day, the alleged incident
has taken place. The learned trial Court Judge after
examination of the witnesses and assessing the
evidence was not ready to believe the case of the
complainant.
5.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohan N.
Shah has relied upon the deposition of Dr. Jagruti
Janshali at Exhibit 44, who had medically examined
the deceased. It is submitted that though the deceased
had suffered 90% burns, but as per the evidence of the
Doctor, it cannot be believed that the lady could not
state the facts as given in the complaint. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/38/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
submitted that though the deceased was having
difficulty in speaking, the complaint could not be
denied and therefore, considering these facts, the
present appeal may be allowed.
6.Having heard the submissions canvassed and on
perusing the records of the case, it surfaces that the
learned trial Court Judge has referred to the deposition
of the learned Executive Magistrate who had recorded
the dying declaration. In the dying declaration, the
learned Executive Magistrate has stated that the time
taken for answering the question was after a long
period. However, the whole dying declaration would
suggest that the deceased has not named anyone in the
dying declaration. The dying declaration does not bear
the endorsement of the Doctor of the deceased's mental
and physical state to give a declaration. Further, the
thumb impression has not been identified by the Doctor
or nurse, which the learned trial Court Judge has
observed in the judgment and order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/38/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
7.There appears to be two dying declarations on record.
In one of the dying declarations at Exhibit 57, the
deceased has given the cause for setting herself ablaze
is that since her husband was eating in the company of
elder sister-in-law (jethani) and that she rebuked him
and because of that reason, they were harassing her
and beating her and were also having the intention to
give a divorce.
8.The statement of the deceased could not be
corroborated by the statement of her mother and father
who have turned hostile. The day on which the
incident had occurred was when the members of both
the sides had gathered to settle the dispute. As per the
deposition of the witness-Shivabhai Virambhai, five
members had come from the side of the deceased and
he was called by Laljibhai and they had gone to the
house of Laljibhai. At that time, the deceased stated
that she does not want to stay with her husband and
she wanted to return back at the paternal house. In
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/38/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
fact, the father-in-law had stated that they did not want
to give a divorce. Such a conversation was taking
place between the parties. The learned trial Court
Judge has denied to believe the dying declaration.
Other witnesses have not given any supporting
evidence. The only evidence which comes from the
testimony of Dr. Jagruti Janshali is that the deceased
at that time, was conscious she has referred to the
history given by the injured deceased that father-in-
law said that brother-in-law had burned her, that
evidence itself would not bring credibility to the history
noted. The doctor has stated of 90% burns .It is also
admitted by Dr. Jagruti Janshali that on the hands of
the patient, there were no burns. It is further admitted
that there was swelling on her face and neck. The face,
lips and neck was severely burnt and it was difficult for
the deceased to speak. That itself can be appreciated
to consider that the deceased was not in a fit state of
mind or was not in position to give history with 90%
burns. Further the question will arise as to how whole
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/38/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
body got burnt but no burns were found on hands. This
itself creates doubt on prosecution case.
9.The fact which also comes on record is that the
deceased herself was not ready to stay with the
husband. The cross examination of the witness as
observed by the learned trial Court Judge reveals the
fact that the deceased was disliking the husband as he
was dark; the deceased was fair and her parents were
forcibly sending her to the matrimonial house against
her wishes. No witness could corroborate any
continuous harassment from the side of the accused.
Further, the case of elder brothers-in-law alleged to
have poured the kerosene as well as the instigation of
the parents-in-law could not be proved on record. While
no evidence could be proved, of the deceased to
corroborate the fact of the illicit relation of the husband
with the sister-in-law, to consider it as mental or
physical cruelty. The deceased had informed her
mother that she got burnt while cooking. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/38/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
prosecution case of the elder brothers-in-law burning
the deceased and the instigation of the parents-in-law
could not be proved. The panchnama of the place of
incident does not bring out this fact since no kerosene
was found on the floor. The learned trial Court Judge
on appreciation of the evidence found it fit to give
benefit of doubt to the accused and has acquitted the
respondents on appreciation of evidence.
10. We also find that the learned Judge has given
consistent reasoning to appreciate the evidence as
referred hereinabove. We do not find any inconsistency
or blatant illegality to the conclusion arrived at by the
learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar to take a
contrary view and upset the judgment and order of the
learned Sessions Judge.
11. In the case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2010) 2 SCC 333, it has been observed as under :-
"61. In a case of acquittal, if the trial court's view is a possible or
plausible view, then the Appellate Court or the High Court would
not be justified in interfering with it. It is the settled legal position
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/38/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
that there is presumption of innocence and that presumption is
further fortified with the acquittal of the accused by the trial court.
The Appellate Court or the High Court would not be justified in
reversing the judgment of acquittal unless it comes to a clear
conclusion that the judgment of the trial court is utterly perverse
and, on the basis of the evidence on record, no other view is
plausible or possible than the one taken by the Appellate Court or
the High Court."
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and
observation and also taking into consideration the
principles laid down in the above referred decision of
Darshan Singh (supra), the present Appeal stands
dismissed. Record and proceedings, be sent to the
concerned Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
Sd/-
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
CAROLINE / DB # 12
