Gujarat High Court
Laljibhai Galabhai Kaklotar vs State Of Gujarat on 23 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1534 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
LALJIBHAI GALABHAI KAKLOTAR & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MR AJMERI for MR MA KHARADI(1032) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR ROHANKUMAR RAVAL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 23/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1.The appellants No.1-father-in-law and appellant No.2-
mother-in-law came to be convicted by the judgment
and order dated 19.11.2003 by the learned Sessions
Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No.50 of 2001. The
trial against the appellants was under Sections 306,
498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
2.Learned advocate Mr. M.R. Ajmeri had on an earlier
date, produced the death certificate of the appellant
No.1-Laljibhai Galabhai Kaklotar, who died on
22.01.2006. The death was ordered to be verified by
the police. Today, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor tenders before this Court the Report of the
Police Inspector, Rajula Police Station. The Talati
cum Mantri of Dungar Gram Panchayat has addressed
a communication dated 30.06.2025 to the Police
Inspector, Rajula Police Station, stating therein of the
death of the appellant No.1 on 22.01.2006 and also
attaching the Death Certificate of the deceased. The
said Report is ordered to be taken on record.
3.In view of the above, the present appeal qua the
appellant No.1-Laljibhai Galabhai Kaklotar stands
abated. Hence, the present appeal would be for the
appellant No.2-Godavriben @ Anjwariben, wife of
Laljibhai Galabhai.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
4.The conviction is under Section 498A IPC where the
appellant No.2-mother-in-law was ordered to undergo
sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine,
further one month simple imprisonment.
5.Learned advocate Mr. M.R. Ajmeri has submitted of
illegality in not appreciating the provisions of Section
32 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The learned trial Court
Judge has committed an error in relying upon the
three dying declarations before three different
authorities where the cause of suicide has differed. It
is submitted that there is no consistency in the
statement recorded of deceased-Rekhaben. It is also
submitted that the Doctor who had certified the dying
declaration recorded by the learned Executive
Magistrate is not an authorized Doctor since he was
not the treating Doctor who could give a certificate
about the fit state of mind of the deceased, where the
deceased had sustained 90-95% burns as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
medical statement of the PW2-Medical Officer-Dr.
Ashokbhai Laljibhai Vadher. It is further submitted
that there is no specific details of the fact of
harassment as alleged by the deceased. The learned
Judge has rightly not believed any act of abetment of
suicide and therefore, has rightly acquitted both the
parents-in-law under Section 306 IPC.
5.1. Learned advocate Mr. M.R. Ajmeri has submitted
that the cruelty as described under Section 498A IPC
has not been proved. The mother of the deceased who
had deposed would have no occasion to have a talk
with her daughter in the hospital. In addition, earlier
also, the daughter had never stated of any harassment
from the parents-in-law, to the mother of the deceased
and only to create an evidence, the fact of the deceased
talking with the mother on that day, during the course
of hospitalization, appears to have been raised to rope
in the parents-in-law in a false case. Therefore, it was
urged, that the present Appeal may be allowed in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
favour of the appellant No.2-the mother-in-law.
6.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.
Rohankumar Raval has submitted that the evidence of
mother is crystal clear and points out the harassment
from the mother-in-law to the deceased. The mother-
in-law had physically injured the deceased, who had
twisted the arms twice and had even rebuked the
deceased. PW5-Godavariben Vithalbhai at Exhibit 15
has stated that the deceased was unhappy in her
matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the
dying declaration is recorded in a conscious state of
mind of the deceased. The deceased has stated before
the learned Executive Magistrate and has referred to
the harassment from the mother-in-law and also of the
father-in-law and because of the harassment, the
deceased had taken the last step of taking her own life.
It is therefore, submitted that the conviction is just
and proper.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
7.Having heard the submissions canvassed and on
perusing the records of the case including the
deposition of the witnesses, it transpires that PW5-
Godavariben Vithalbhai (mother of the deceased) was
examined at Exhibit 15, wherein she has stated that
the marriage span was three years. She has stated
that she received the information about her daughter's
self- immolation, and when she reached the hospital at
Rajula, she met her daughter, who was conscious and
was speaking. Therefore, she enquired from her
daughter as to why she had taken such a kind of
action, to which the daughter replied, that she was fed
up by her mother-in-law and father-in-law, and
therefore, she had set herself ablaze. The mother had
also deposed that her daughter had informed her that
the mother-in-law (the present appellant No.2) had
twisted her arms twice and had taunted her. The
mother stated that the daughter was unhappy at her
matrimonial home. The husband was residing at
Surat while the deceased was with her in-laws at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
Village Dungar. Further, in the examination-in-chief,
the mother had also stated that after marriage when
the daughter would visit them at her parental home,
the deceased had never informed her about
harassment or any other incident. It was for the first
time in the hospital, the mother was informed by the
daughter about the harassment. In the cross
examination, the witness has confirmed that she had
not stated before police in her statement about
appellant mother-in-law twisting arms of her
daughter.
7.1. The evidence of the mother itself makes it clear
that prior to the incident of self-immolation, the
daughter had never informed about any cruelty or
harassment meted out at the hands of the parents-in-
law. It also becomes doubtful as to when the mother
had a talk with the daughter in the hospital. The
evidence on record suggests that the daughter was
completely burned and there were 95% burns on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
whole body. The evidence of the mother-in-law
twisting the arm has not been verified by the statement
before the police. It was for the very first time she gave
such evidence in the Court thus such evidence cannot
be believed. From the overall examination of the
testimony of the mother of the deceased, it could be
concluded that the daughter had never informed
during the span of marriage about harassment or
cruelty. The only evidence which comes on record of
twisting of arms twice by the mother-in-law, which was
not informed to the parents, has, no reliance
corroborative to believe it. The mother has not given
any specific incident of cruelty or harassment. There
is no specific ground of any such harassment. Thus it
could be gathered from the evidence of PW5-mother
that there was no continuous form of harassment to be
considered as cruelty as defined under Section 498A of
IPC.
7.2. PW1-Dr. Babubhai Aalabhai Kalsaiya at Exhibit 7
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
had deposed that on 19.03.2001, the deceased was
brought before him for treatment, the patient was
conscious. The patient had informed her that she got
burnt because of the blasting of primus stove. There
were about 90% burns and the head area was burnt.
In the cross examination, this witness had confirmed
that when the patient was brought before him, she was
in a conscious state. The certificate issued by the
Doctor was produced at Exhibit 8 and accordingly,
during the examination, he has found "accidental
burns 90% superficial to deep, sparing scalg, some
part of buttocks, and foot. Hair burnt partially. G.C.
very poor."
7.3. The witness PW2-Dr. Ashokbhai Laljibhai Vadher
had examined the deceased on 20.03.2001 at Rajula
Government Hospital. He has stated that primary
treatment was given and thereafter for further
treatment, she was referred to Mahuva. He found 95%
burns on the deceased. The Doctor has stated that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
after informing the appellants, they started treatment
and during course of treatment, the deceased died.
Thereafter, this witness and another Dr. S.M. Maani
both had conducted post mortem in the Panel.
According to their opinion, the deceased had burn
injuries all over her body. The opinion as to the cause
or probable cause of death was "cause of death is
cardio-respiratory arrest due to hypo-volcanic shock
due to burns and sepsis." The post mortem report was
produced on record at Exhibit 10. During the cross
examination, this witness has stated that such kind of
injuries could not be caused due to blast from a
primus stove or some other lamp and the injuries
suffered by the deceased was on account of her
suicide.
8.PW3-Vithalbhai Meghjibhai (the father of the deceased)
has stated that the marriage of the deceased had taken
place three years prior to the date of incident. The
father has deposed that the deceased-Radhika had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
never informed anything, but stated that she had
burnt herself because of the harassment of the father-
in-law and mother-in-law. He has stated that the
daughter was conscious in the hospital, he had
enquired from the daughter, who stated that she had
burnt herself because of the harassment of the
parents-in-law. The father could not state about the
type of harassment and he only stated that 'God knows
what type of harassment was given to his daughter?'
He has also stated when she would visit their house,
she had never informed them about any harassment.
In the cross examination also, this fact get more
strengthened that the daughter had never informed of
any harassment during the three years of marriage.
Further, when both husband and wife would visit
them, they would stay there but no such fact of any
harassment was ever told to the father.
8.1. The father of the deceased is the complainant,
who has given the complaint at Exhibit 13. His
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
deposition before the Court is not consistent with the
complaint, which notes that when they had come back
home, since the last two months, the parents-in-law,
would taunt her for some work at home and had stated
that the parents-in-law were harassing her.
Therefore, fed up of the harassment, she had poured
kerosene on her body. This fact does not get
corroboration from the testimony of the father in the
Court. The father has stated that he has no knowledge
of any harassment and if at all, there was harassment,
it would be known only to God. Thus, the parents
were not knowing of any incident of any harassment to
be termed as cruelty. The mother of the deceased also
had no knowledge of the alleged harassment. It was
only when she talked to her daughter in the hospital
that she has narrated the alleged harassment.
However, no such details were given to the police in
the statement. At the same time, the father in the
deposition before the trial Court has feigned ignorance
and he had left it to God and did not give any concrete
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
details of the harassment to the daughter.
9.PW4-Dahyabhai Vithalbhai (the brother of the
deceased) was examined. He has stated that his
parents talked with his sister (the deceased) while his
sister had no occasion to talk with him in the hospital.
The sister would come occasionally at home. This
witness was declared hostile. In the cross examination
by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
brother has not supported the case of the prosecution,
while in the cross examination from the side of the
accused, the brother stated that the brother-in-law-
Jayant and the deceased whenever they used to come
to their house, they were happy and the deceased had
never informed about any harassment. Thus, the
brother also does not support any complaint made by
the sister against the parents-in-law.
10. The evidence now which has been relied by the
prosecution is the dying declaration. As stated by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
learned advocate Mr. M.R. Ajmeri, the record would
suggest that there are three forms of dying
declarations. Before PW1-Dr. Babubhai Aalabhai
Kalsaiya, where the incident referred is of the deceased
sustaining burn injuries because of the bursting of
primus stove. Even the statement before the police
PW6-Bhagwanbhai Kanjibhai Parmar which learned
advocate Mr. M.R. Ajmeri submitted becomes doubtful
in view of the recording of the statement by the
Investigating Officer as it becomes conflicting to the
dying declaration recorded by the learned Executive
Magistrate in regard to the time of recording it.
10.1 The evidence of PW1-Dr. Babubhai Aalabhai
Kalsaiya of burn injuries because of the bursting of
the primus stove has not been supported by PW2-
Medical Officer-Dr. Ashokbhai Laljibhai Vadher, who
was the treating doctor and who has stated that the
cause of death was suicide and not accidental death by
the bursting of primus stove or any lamp.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
10.2.The second form of dying declaration is before the
police PW6-Bhagwanbhai Kanjibhai Parmar. According
to him, on 19.03.2001 when he was at Mahuva Police
Station, he had received a yadi from Mahuva
Government Hospital. He has produced the Yadi as
evidence at Exhibit 17. Thereafter, he had visited the
Government Hospital at Mahuva, where he met the
Resident Medical Officer at the Hospital. He had
enquired from the Doctor about the condition of the
injured-Radhika. The Doctor told him that she was in
a conscious state and could speak. Thereafter, he had
made a Report about recording dying declaration
before the learned Executive Magistrate. During that
process, he stated that after recording of the dying
declaration by the learned Executive Magistrate, he
had recorded the statement and as per the same, he
deposed that the injured had informed that she had
burnt herself because of the harassment of the elder
brother-in-law and father-in-law. The witness had
stated that he reduced in writing the statement of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
injured-Radhika and had taken her left hand thumb
impression. In the cross examination he stated that,
the statement Ex.18 was recorded at about 11.30, he
also affirmed that the statement was recorded only
after the dying declaration was recorded by the learned
Executive Magistrate.
10.3.The statement at Exhibit 18 becomes very crucial
since the mother-in-law (the present appellant No.2)
has not been alleged by the daughter-in-law of any
harassment. There is no statement of harassment by
the mother-in-law. Before police PW6-Bhagwanbhai
Kanjibhai Parmar, the harassment as noted was by the
elder brother-in-law and father-in-law, while the elder
brother-in-law has not been made an accused in the
matter. The statement recorded at Exhibit 18 does not
bear endorsement of the Doctor to reflect the
conscious state of the deceased and she being in a fit
state of mind. Learned advocate Mr. M.R. Ajmeri could
reflect the distinction of the recording of the statement
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
by police PW6-Bhagwanbhai Kanjibhai Parmar with
that of the dying declaration before the learned
Executive Magistrate. The dying declaration before
the learned Magistrate at Exhibit 20 refers the time as
16.10 hours to 16.20 hours, that means in the
afternoon at 4.10 pm to 4.20 pm, then there would be
a contradiction in the statement of the police-PW6 of
recording the statement after the recording of the
dying declaration. However, a perusal of Exhibit 18,
the statement recorded by the police PW6-
Bhagwanbhai Kanjibhai Parmar dated 19.03.2001
does not record the time. The time verified from the
deposition of PW6 becomes contrary to what is stated
in the evidence by the Executive Magistrate. Exhibit
18 recorded that at 9.30 in the morning of 19.03.2001,
since the mother-in-law and father-in-law were
harassing her, she being fed up had self immolated
herself. The statement also states that her parents-
in-law and brother-in-law have brought her for
treatment at Rajula Primary Centre. However, for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
further treatment the injured was brought to the
Rajula Government Hospital. The dying declaration at
Exhibit 20 only records the harassment by the mother-
in-law and records that her husband was at Surat.
The father-in-law and elder brother-in-law had brought
her for treatment after the injured had self-immolated
herself by pouring kerosene over her body. The
statement at Exhibit 20 further records that the
mother-in-law was harassing her.
10.4 An analysis of the evidence of witnesses shows
that there is no knowledge of any harassment being
meted out to the daughter by the accused and it is
only first time in the dying declaration, the deceased
states about the harassment by the mother-in-law and
father-in-law. It would also be necessary to record
that the treating Doctor has not endorsed about the
mental state of the deceased. The endorsement has
been given by PW11-Dr. Sajjadali Masoomali Jumani,
who states that he was the Medical Officer at the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
Mahuva Municipal Hospital and during his duty at
4.10 pm, he enquired as to whether the injured-
Radhika was conscious and whether she was in
position to depose. Thus, he had gone into the
hospital and found that the injured was totally
conscious and she was in a fit state of mind. In the
cross examination, he has stated that he is not the
treating doctor, he has no knowledge of the medicines
and injections which were administered to the injured-
Radhika during the treatment. He also has stated
that he was not present with the injured-Radhika
when her statement was recorded and has also
confirmed that he has not put signature after the
statement was recorded. The conscious state of mind
of the injured could not be proved by PW11-Dr.
Sajjadali Masoomali Jumani as he was not present
while the dying declaration of the injured-Radhika was
recorded. Still however, the fact has to be appreciated
that prior to certifying the conscious state of mind , the
Doctor who had treated and examined her had found
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
her in fit state of mind. It would be difficult to view
that the dying declaration was not recorded after the
necessary endorsement of the Doctor.
10.5 The dying declaration at Exhibit 20 does not state
of any harassment by the elder brother-in-law. The
harassment is attributed to only mother-in-law and
thereafter, it refers to both father-in-law and mother-
in-law who as stated by learned advocate Mr. M.R.
Ajmeri, there are no specifications of any harassment
as contemplated under Section 498A IPC. Thus, the
dying declaration does not state of any such fact. The
learned Judge has rightly not believed the case under
Section 306 IPC. The conviction is under section 498A
of IPC. The necessary ingredients to bring the case
under becomes vital to be examined.
11. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to
the decision in the case of Shardaben, Daughter of
Ishwarlal Bhogilal & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
15.07.2025, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.2608 of
2005, where this court had the opportunity to deal with
the scope of section 498A , the relevant paragraph are
extracted herein below:
"24.10 To prove the charge of Section 498A of IPC, the
prosecution has to establish that the husband or his relative
subjected such woman to cruelty. The term 'cruelty' is
explained in two parts of Section 498A. The first part speaks
of wilful conduct of a nature that is likely to drive the woman
to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the
life, limb or health, either physical or mental of such woman.
24.11 The second part of Section 498A of IPC provides for
harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security on account of these failure or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
24.12 Section 498A of IPC does not attract every
harassment or every type of cruelty. The prosecution has to
establish that the beating and harassment of the deceased
were with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil the
illegal demand of dowry.
24.13 In the case of Raj Rani (Smt.) Vs. State (Delhi
Administration), [(2000) 10 SCC 662] it was observed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
4. We have gone through the entire writing contained in the
suicide note. It makes a serious castigation against her
husband for being an addict to narcotic drugs. Then she
made a general allegation against her mother-in-law and in a
lesser degree towards the appellant. But unfortunately she
did not advert to any concrete instance which can be termed
as cruelty as defined in Section 498-A of the Penal Code,
1860. The utterances said to have been made by the
appellant towards the deceased were to her chagrin and she
had taken them very seriously and in the suicide note she
described such utterances as not worthy of reproduction.
5. It is not enough that the deceased felt those words
hurting, it must be subjected to judicial scrutiny and the
Court must be in a position to hold that those words were
sufficiently hurting enough as to amount to "cruelty" falling
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
within the parameters fixed in Section 498-A of the Penal
Code, 1860. The area remains grey and vague. Not a single
word said to have been spoken by the appellant as against
the deceased had been put on record by the deceased in the
suicide note in spite of the fact that the said note is a very
lengthy letter running into several paragraphs. The tenor and
language of the suicide note would reflect that she was not
an illiterate lady. As the Court is rendered helpless to judge
whether the words which the deceased heard from the
appellant would amount to cruelty, it is far from possible for
the criminal court to hold that she is guilty of the offence of
cruelty as envisaged in the section. It is also to be pointed
out that the deceased did not mention a single deed which
the appellant would have done against her. All that is said
against the appellant was that she spoke something which
she took as objectionable.
27. In the case of State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal,
[(1994) 1 SCC 73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:
"15. We are not oblivious that in a criminal trial the degree of
proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings.
In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and
circumstances of the case, the charges made against the
accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and
the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises
and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the
introduction of Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-A of the
Indian Evidence Act. Although, the court's conscience must
be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there
are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in
respect of the offences alleged, it should be borne in mind
that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial
and the question whether the charges made against the
accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts
must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case
and the quality of the evidences adduced in the case and the
materials placed on record. Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater
[(1950) 2 All ER 458 : 1951 P 35 (CA)] (All ER at p. 459) has
observed that the doubt must be of a reasonable man and
the standard adopted must be a standard adopted by a
reasonable and just man for coming to a conclusion
considering the particular subject-matter."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
12. The marriage span is stated to be three years.
There won't be any presumption under Section 113A of
the Evidence Act since the case of abetment to the
commission of suicide is not believed. No continuous
form of harassment to consider as cruelty has been
proved. The failure of prosecution witnesses to explain
any instances of cruelty or harassment would go to the
root of the matter as cruelty should be proved to be of
such a level which had drove the daughter-in-law to
injure herself and take her life.The cruelty as defined
under Section 498A IPC, has not been proved. Even
the proximate cause of suicide could not also be found
in the dying declaration. The only general sentence
that mother-in-law is harassing would not bring the
case under Section 498A IPC unless continuous
harassment is not proved. The prosecution witness
has not stated of any single instant/incidents which
would fall under the definition of cruelty, as defined
under Section 498A IPC. The dying declaration on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
record could not prove the continuous harassment by
the mother-in-law since there is no single incident of
such harassment. The so-called allegation is made by
the mother of the deceased against the mother-in-law
of the deceased, stating that the mother-in-law had
twisted the hands of the deceased, the same does not
find support from the evidence of the prosecution itself
as no such statement was recorded by the police.
Thus, not a single instance could be proved, the
prosecution has failed to prove the case under Section
498A IPC. The conviction under section 498A cannot
sustain against appellant no 2.
13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The
appeal of appellant No.1-Laljibhai Galabhai Kaklotar
stands abated. The judgment and order of conviction
and sentence dated 19.11.2003 by the learned
Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No.50 of 2001
is quashed and set aside. The appellant No.2-
Godavariben alias Anjvaliben, W/o. Laljibhai Galabhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1534/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
is acquitted of all the charges levelled against her. Bail
and bond, stands discharged. The amount of fine
paid, if any, be refunded to the appellant No.2 herein.
Record and proceedings, be sent to the concerned Trial
Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
CAROLINE / DB # 30
