Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Urmilaben Ishwarbhai Naranbhai Dho. ... on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1257 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
--- No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
URMILABEN ISHWARBHAI NARANBHAI DHO. PATEL
================================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 4.8.2014
passed in Sessions Case No.2 of 2013 on the file of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, whereby the respondent,
who is the sole accused in the said case, was acquitted of the
charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
2. Facts of the prosecution case may be delineated as
follows:-
2.1 Kalpanaben (herein after referred to as "the deceased")
and the accused-Urmilaben are relatives. The deceased and
the accused are the great-grand daughters-in-law of PW-7.
Both the accused and the deceased are residing in side by side
houses and they are neighbours to each other. PW-7, the
great-grand mother-in-law of the deceased has been residing
with the deceased in her house. It is stated that the accused
got suspicion that her husband, who is examined as PW-11, got
illegal contact with the deceased and that they both had an
extra-marital affair.
2.2 So, on 26.7.2012 at about 10 a.m., the accused went to
the house of the deceased and informed her that a poisonous
snake is in the house of the accused and asked her to come to
her house. So, the deceased accompanied the accused to her
house. PW-7, who is her great-grand mother-in-law, was
available in the house at that time. Thereafter, PW-7 heard
some shouts of the deceased from the house of the accused.
Later, she came to know that the deceased died in the house
of the accused with some injuries sustained by her.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
2.3 PW-8 is the husband of the deceased. While he was at his
workplace, he received information from his brother-in-law
over phone that some incident took place in the house of the
accused. On receipt of the said information, he immediately
reached the house of the accused and he found his wife, who is
the deceased, in a pool of blood in the kitchen room the house
of the accused. PW-11 is the husband of the accused. While he
was at his workplace, he also received information that some
incident took place in his house and he immediately reached
his house and found the dead-body of the deceased in his
house. Thereafter, PW-8, who is the husband of the deceased
lodged report with the police stating that somebody caused
injuries to his wife and ran away. Police registered the said
report as an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 302
of IPC and investigated the case.
2.4 Inquest was held over the dead-body of the deceased.
Thereafter, autopsy was also held over the dead-body of the
deceased. The doctor, who is examined as PW-6, opined that
the injured died due to injuries on her neck caused with sharp
weapon. Scene of offence observation was also made in the
presence of the mediators and a panchnama was prepared at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
that time. One knife was found at the scene of offence
containing blood stains. It was seized in the presence of the
mediators and was sent for chemical examination to forensic
science laboratory. The blood stained clothes of the deceased
were also seized and they were also sent for examination to
the forensic science laboratory.
2.5 Thereafter, the accused was arrested on 27.7.2012. On
the disclosure statement given by the accused that she would
show the place where she has hidden the axe used by her to
cause injuries to the deceased, she led the investigation officer
and the mediators to the place where axe was hidden. It is
stated that axe was recovered at the instance of the accused
and it was seized in the presence of the mediators and it is
stated that the said axe contains blood stains. It was also sent
for chemical examination to the FSL.
2.6 It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused has
made an extra-judicial confession before her husband, who is
examined as PW-11, stating that she killed the deceased.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
2.7 As the investigation revealed that the accused got
suspicion over the deceased that she got an illicit intimacy
with the husband of the accused and that they both had extra-
marital affair that the accused called the deceased to her
house on the pretext that a poisonous snake is in her house
and, thereafter, hacked her with an axe and caused fatal injury
on her neck and other parts of the body and thereby killed her,
the police has filed charge-sheet against the accused, after
completion of investigation, for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC.
2.8 In the trial Court charge under Section 302 of IPC was
framed against the accused and the same was read over and
explained to her. She denied the said charge and claimed to be
tried.
2.9 During the course of trial, prosecution got examined PW-
1 to PW-12 witnesses and got marked 19 exhibits to
substantiate its case against the accused.
2.10 At the end of the trial, after considering the
evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
Court found the accused not guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC and acquitted her of the said charge
by the impugned judgment.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the
State has preferred present appeal challenging the validity of
the said judgment of acquittal.
4. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard
Ms.Krina Calla, learned APP for the State. Despite service of
notice, the accused did not appear before the Court and she
has not turned up for hearing. In order to give her a fair
opportunity, we have ordered to list the matter, as per order
dated 21.7.2025, to this date i.e. on 22.7.2025 for hearing.
Today also, the accused did not turn up for hearing. Therefore,
as it is an old appeal of the year 2014 and as it is listed on our
Board under the caption "for final hearing of critically old
matters of 2011 to 2020", we are not inclined to adjourn the
hearing of the appeal and decided to dispose of the appeal on
merits as per the material available on record. So, we have
carefully perused the evidence and the material available on
record and subjected the evidence to strict judicial scrutiny.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
5. The entire case of the prosecution purely rested on
circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence of any eye
witness in proof of the fact that the accused hacked the
deceased either with the knife or with axe and caused the fatal
injuries to her, which resulted into her death. So, the
prosecution is completely relying upon circumstantial evidence
to prove its case against the accused. According to the
prosecution, it relied on the following circumstances:-
(i) That the accused got motive to kill the deceased as she
got suspicion that the deceased got an illicit intimacy and
extra-marital affair with the husband of the accused, who
is PW-11 and as such she bore grudge against her and
killed her.
(ii) The accused came to the house of the deceased, who is
her neighbour, and took the deceased to her house on
the pretext that there is a poisonous snake in her house
and the deceased accompanied her to the house and PW-
7, who is their great-grand mother-in-law has witnessed
the same.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
(iii) Thereafter the dead-body of the deceased was found in a
pool of blood with injuries on her body in the kitchen
room of the house of the accused.
(iv) A knife was found at the scene of offence in the house of
the accused and also blood-stained axe was recovered at
the instance of the accused on disclosure statement
given by her.
(v) The accused has given an extra-judicial confession before
her husband, who is examined as PW-11, that she killed
the deceased.
6. Before considering the evidence relating to said
circumstances, at the very outset, it is to be noticed that as
per the settled law, in a case purely based on circumstantial
evidence, the prosecution has to prove and establish each and
every circumstance relied on by it with legal and cogent
evidence without there being any missing link in the chain of
events and the circumstances relied on by it. Any missing link
in the chain of circumstances would be fatal to the case of the
prosecution. The proved circumstances must also lead to an
irresistible conclusion that the accused and the accused alone
and none-else is the culprit, who has committed the murder of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
the deceased. The said proved circumstances must also be
consistent with the guilt of the accused and must be
inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. Bearing in
mind the said well settled principles of law relating to
appreciation of evidence of a case based on circumstantial
evidence, evidence in the present case is to be considered.
7. Though motive is not relevant and it will play no role in a
case based on direct evidence in a criminal trial, but in a case
based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays a vital role
and, more particularly, when the prosecution has come up with
a specific motive attributing the same to the accused to
commit the crime of murder, the prosecution has to prove the
said motive with acceptable legal evidence to the satisfaction
of the Court.
8. In the instant case, the motive that was attributed by the
prosecution to the accused is that she got suspicion that the
accused got an illegal contact and an extra-marital affair with
PW-11, who is the husband of the accused and as such she has
bore grudge against the deceased and committed murder of
her. But except making a bald assertion to that effect that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
accused got suspicion relating to the alleged extra-marital
affair between the deceased and PW-11, absolutely not even
an iota of evidence was adduced either direct or circumstantial
evidence to prove that the accused bore grudge against the
deceased on that ground and thereby killed her. On the other
hand, all the family members of the deceased and the
accused, who are examined as PW-7, great-grand mother-in-
law of both the accused and the deceased, PW-8, husband of
the deceased and PW-11, husband of the accused, stated that
all the family members are having cordial relationship. Nothing
is emanating from their testimony that there are any ill-
feelings between the accused and the deceased or that the
accused bore grudge against the deceased on the alleged
ground of suspicion that she got relating to the said illegal
affair. Therefore, the very motive that is attributed to the
accused by the prosecution to commit murder of the deceased
is not proved and established in this case. So the very first
circumstance that is relied upon by the prosecution is not
proved and established.
9. Learned APP, Ms.Krina Calla, vehemently contended that
evidence on record proves that the accused came to the house
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
of the deceased and took her to her house on the pretext that
there is a poisonous snake in their house and to help her and
this fact is proved by the evidence of PW-7, who is the great-
grand mother-in-law and as the dead-body of the deceased
was found in the house of the accused with fatal injuries that
the accused has to explain as to how the deceased met with
homicidal death in her house and as she did not explain the
same that it shall be presumed and held that she is the culprit
who committed the murder.
10. No doubt, PW-7, who is their great-grand mother-in-law
deposed in her evidence that on the date of offence that the
accused came to the house of the deceased and took her to
her house on the pretext that there is a poisonous snake in her
house and that thereafter she heard shouts of the deceased.
But she did not say that after she heard the shouts that she
went to the house of the accused and has seen the dead-body
of the deceased in the house of the accused with any injuries.
The immediate response of any prudent person after hearing
the shouts of the deceased would be to go to that place, as the
house of the accused is only adjoining to the house of the
deceased and to find what had happened and why she has
shouted. She did not admittedly go to the house of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
accused, after hearing the said shouts. So, it is against the
natural conduct of a human being. Why she did not visit the
house of the accused after hearing the shouts is not explained
by her in her evidence. So her evidence is not much useful to
prove that the accused hacked the deceased and killed her in
her house.
11. PW-8, who is the husband of the deceased, has lodged
the FIR in this case. It is important to note that at the earliest
point of time, when he lodged the FIR on the same day i.e. on
26.7.2012 at 1.30 in the afternoon, immediately after the
incident, he stated in the FIR that somebody hacked his wife
and ran away. He did not say in specific terms in the FIR, which
is the earliest version, that the accused got suspicion over her
and she killed her in her house. But contrary to the said
earliest version stated by him in the FIR, he has stated in his
evidence, when he was examined as PW-8, that the accused
hacked her in her house and killed her. This is a clear omission
made by him in the FIR, which is a significant omission, which
makes his subsequent version given in his deposition in the
Court not only doubtful but false. It is a deliberate
improvement made by him in his evidence during the course of
trial. When he has stated in the FIR, which was lodged
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
immediately after the incident, that somebody hacked his wife
and ran away, his testimony given subsequently in the Court
that the accused killed her is not believable and his testimony
given to that effect is wholly unreliable. Thus, there is any
amount of doubt regarding the fact that the dead-body was
found in the house of the accused in a pool of blood. At this
juncture, it is relevant to note that the panch witnesses
relating to the scene of offence observation also did not say
that they have seen the dead-body in the house of the accused
when they were examined in the Court. So they did not
support the case of the prosecution on this vital aspect that
the dead-body was found in the house of the accused. They
only stated that a knife was found at the scene of offence,
which was stained with blood and it was recovered in their
presence. This recovery of knife in the house of the accused is
also doubtful for the reason that the prosecution is not
particular whether the accused has hacked the deceased with
a knife or an axe. The prosecution has come up with another
version that after the arrest of the accused, she has given a
disclosure statement and led them to the place where the axe
was hidden with which she hacked the deceased and the axe
was recovered at her instance and it is stained with blood.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
12. So, according to the prosecution, there are now two
weapons that is knife and an axe. So they are not certain with
which weapon the accused committed the offence. Further it is
to be noted that when the said axe was sent for examination
by the experts of the FSL, they did not find any blood on the
said axe. At the time of recovery, it is stated that there are
blood stains on the axe but the expert did not find any blood
stains on the axe. So, the very recovery of both the knife and
the axe is doubtful and it appears that both weapons are
planted in this case to bolster the case of the prosecution.
13. As regards the extra-judicial confession said to have been
given by the accused to PW-11, who is her husband, the same
is also not convincing and trustworthy. In the statement given
by PW-11 before the police, he has stated that the accused
only informed him that she killed the deceased but he did not
say with which weapon i.e. with knife or axe that she killed her.
However, in the deposition given in the Court, he stated that
the accused informed him that she killed the deceased with an
axe. So this is again a significant omission in the earlier version
given before police relating to the weapon used by the
accused. It is also an obvious improvement made by him in his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
evidence during the course of trial. So, it also proves that the
said evidence given by him in the Court relating to the weapon
used is absolutely false and it makes his testimony wholly
unreliable. It is settled law that an extra-judicial confession, by
its nature, is a very weak piece of evidence and in order to
base conviction on the said evidence of extra-judicial
confession, the Court should not find any infirmities relating to
extra-judicial confession. In the instant case, on account of
omission and inconsistent version from the earlier statement
given before the police and the evidence given before the
Court by PW-11, his testimony relating to the same is wholly
untrustworthy and cannot be relied upon.
14. Further, as regards the fact that the dead-body of the
deceased was found in the house of the accused, there is no
authentic evidence on record and the evidence of witnesses is
inconsistent and not certain. Therefore, it cannot be held with
certainty that the prosecution has proved that the dead-body
of the deceased was found in the house of the accused. There
is also no evidence on record to prove that the accused was
found in her house along with dead-body of the deceased.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused has to explain as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
to how the deceased met with homicidal death in her house,
when the material fact that the deceased met with homicidal
death in the presence or in the company of the accused in her
house is not proved. Even if it is a fact that the dead-body was
found in the house of the accused, that sole circumstance, by
itself, is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of committing
murder of the deceased. All the circumstances relied on by the
prosecution shall cumulatively be proved. At best, the said fact
raises only a high suspicion against the accused. It is the
settled law that suspicion however strong it may be, it will
never take place of proof and it can never be a substitute for
proof in a criminal trial as per our criminal jurisprudence. So,
on mere suspicion the accused cannot be held guilty for
commission of the said offence.
15. Therefore, none of the circumstances relied on by the
prosecution is proved to the satisfaction of the Court with
legal, cogent and convincing evidence to arrive at any
irresistible conclusion that it is the accused and the accused
alone, who is the culprit, who committed murder of the
deceased. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. After
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
considering the evidence on record and on proper appreciation
of the same, the trial Court arrived at a right conclusion and
recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. The
said finding does not suffer from any legal flaw. So, it warrants
no interference in this appeal. The impugned judgment of
acquittal is perfectly sustainable under law. So, the appeal fails
and is liable to be dismissed.
16. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the
impugned judgment of acquittal dated 4.8.2014 passed in
Sessions Case No.2 of 2013 on the file of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad. Bail bond, if any, of the
respondent shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be
sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
Sd/-
(D. M. VYAS, J)
R.S. MALEK
