Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Champaben W/O. Mangalabhai Talar on 25 July, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 327 of 2000
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHAMPABEN W/O. MANGALABHAI TALAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,5
MR PM DAVE(263) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
DESAI
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI)
1. Present appeal is abated qua accused no.3 and
therefore we have considered the present appeal qua
respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 only.
2. Heard Mr.Krutik Parikh the learned APP for the
appellant and Mr.Ashish Dagli the learned advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
appearing for the respondent-accused nos.1, 2 and 4
at length.
3. The present appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against
the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at
Godhra in Sessions Case No.14 of 1996 dated
05.07.1999, for the offenses punishable under
Sections 498, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
4. The case of the prosecution is that, on
04.08.1995, at 6:30 PM, at Village Bhulindra,
Taluka:Shahera, accused no.4-Narwatbhai
Mangalabhai Talar - the husband, accused number-3 -
Mangalabhai Lakhabhai Talar - the father-in-law,
accused number-1 - Champaben Mangalabhai Talar -
the mother-in-law, accused number-2 - Savitaben
Mangalabhai Talar - the sister-in-law of the deceased,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
and accused no.5-Andarabhai Jesingbhai Pagi, were
torturing Sakriben, and with common intention to
cause death of the deceased Sakriben and with such
knowledge that she would die, inflicted injuries on the
head of the deceased Sakriben, which were sufficient
to cause her death and thus, the accused committed
the offence under Section 302 of the IPC read with
Section 34 of the IPC. Thereafter, with the intention
of destroying the evidence of the said murder, all the
accused hanged the body of Sakriben in the cattle-
pen in the house of the accused Nos.1 to 4, thereby,
having tried to destroy the evidence of such murder
and committed an offence punishable under Section
201 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. On the
aforesaid facts, the complaint was filed against the
accused by PSI below Exh.39, and upon completion of
investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.
5. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
Court, the Additional Sessions Judge framed charge
against the respondent-accused for the aforesaid
offences. The accused pleaded not guilty to the
charge and claimed to be tried.
6. Upon conclusion of oral evidence on the part of
the prosecution, the trial Court recorded further
statements of accused as provided u/s 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, the accused
denied their involvement in the offence, and stated
that, false case had been filed against them. After
hearing both the sides and after appreciating
evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned
Trial Judge acquitted the accused herein, for the
offenses punishable under Sections 498, 302, 201
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Mr.Krutik Parikh the learned APP for the
appellant herein submitted that, impugned judgement
is required to be interfered with mainly on the ground
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
that it is a case of culpable homicide amounting to
murder. That, the competent Court has erred in not
considering the case of the prosecution for offense
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code.
7.1 Mr.Parikh submitted that the competent Court
has disregarded the PM note, wherein, it is not in
dispute that, the deceased was injured and injury no.1
was postmortem, whereas, injury no.2 was
antemorterm, which resulted into the death of the
deceased. It is submitted that, the depositions of
witnesses were given more weightage than the PM
note. The deposition of the doctor is also not
considered in its true spirit and in view thereof, the
issue no.1 is erroneously decided in negative.
7.2 It is further submitted by Mr.Parikh that, once
the issue no.1 itself is erroneously decided, the rest of
the order/judgement is such that, the same also is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
required to be interfered with.
7.3 Mr.Parikh has further relied on the deposition of
the prosecution witnesses and the documents
produced on record to substantiate his submissions
and submitted that, the present appeal is required to
be allowed. It is submitted that, once the Court
comes to the conclusion that the death was homicidal,
under such circumstances, the entire judgement falls,
and the same should be quashed and set aside.
8. Mr.Ashish Dagli the learned advocate appearing
for the respondent-accused supported the impugned
judgement rendered by the competent Court. He
relied on the deposition of PW-1 - Danabhai Kalubhai,
who was the panch witness, having admitted in his
cross-examination that the relation between
deceased-Sakriben and her husband accused No.4-
Narwatbhai were cordial.
8.1 Reliance was also placed by Mr.Dagli on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
deposition of PW-2, Dr. Krishnavallav Anokhilal Raval
- Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Sehra.
Relying on his deposition below Exh.27, wherein, it is
submitted by this doctor that, the cause of death of
deceased was injury on head. Reliance was also
placed on the cross examination of this doctor,
wherein, he has admitted that, if the rope by which a
person is hanging is cut, resulting in his fall, he would
sustain the injuries mentioned in para-17 of the PM
note. Mr.Dagli placed reliance on the PM report
prepared by the said doctor, which is also on record
at Exh.29, wherein, it is stated that, the cause of
death is neurogenic shock due to head injury.
8.2 Mr.Dagli further relied on the deposition of the
complainant- PW-3 - Kodarbhai, father of deceased
Sakriben having deposed below Exh.37, and he
having filed the complaint below Exh.38 on
07.08.1995, and submitted that the complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
himself in his deposition has stated the reason of
filing complaint was suspicion and upon he having
been told by his son, he had lodged the complaint
after three days of the incident. It is submitted that,
in the cross-examination the said witness, he had
admitted that, the relations between his daughter
Sakriben and her husband Narwatbhai were cordial.
8.3 Reliance is also placed on the depositions of
PW-4, deceased's mother-Daliaben having deposed
below Exh.42, PW-5 Koyabhai -the uncle of the
deceased having deposed below Exh.43, PW-10 -
Nanabhai Kodarbhai - brother of the deceased
Sakriben deposed below Exh.54. Placing reliance on
the aforesaid depositions as referred to herein above,
it is substantiated that though the aforesaid witnesses
are that of the prosecution, they have not supported
the case of the prosecution. They have deposed that,
the relation between deceased Sakriben and her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
husband were cordial and there were no instances on
record to show any harassment meted out to the
deceased, to implicate the accused of the offence
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
8.4 Mr.Dagli further placed reliance on the
deposition of PW-11 - PSI-Dilawarsinh having deposed
below Exh.57, who being an independent witness, in
his cross-examination admitted that, during the
course of investigation undertaken by him, it was not
known to him that the cause of death of the deceased
was murder. It is also submitted that, the inquest
panchnama at Exh.21, was drawn in the presence of
panch witnesses on 04.08.1995 between 14:30 to
15:30 hours i.e. on the day, when the alleged incident
had occurred. It is submitted that, the panch witness
PW-7 Danabhai Kalubhai had deposed below Exh.45
that, there were cordial relations between the
deceased and her husband, and they were having
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
healthy married life. In his deposition, there is no
evidence with regard to any cruelty or torture
inflicted upon the deceased.
8.5 Mr.Dagli submitted that, in absence of any
motive and since the relations between the deceased
and her husband being cordial and good, and the
complainant i.e. the father of the deceased also being
present at the matrimonial home of his daughter
when the unfortunate incident had occurred, the
prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
8.6 Mr.Dagli relied on the following decisions:
(I) Decision rendered by this Court in case of
Odhabhai S/o. Dahyabhai Makwana v. State of
Gujarat rendered in Criminal Appeal No.267 of
(II) Decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
in case of Mohd. Akhtar @ Kari & Ors. v. State of
Bihar & Anr. rendered in Criminal Appeal
Nos.407-408 of 2009
(III) Decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India
in case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and
another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh rendered
in Criminal Appeal No.1167 of 2018
8.7 Mr.Dagli would also place on record written
submissions and submitted that, it is a cardinal
principle of criminal jurisprudence that burden of
proof lies upon the prosecution and the standard
required is to prove the charge against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of
innocence operates in favour of the accused
throughout the trial and gains greater strength, post
acquittal. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in
case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra reported in 1984 AIR 1622. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
submitted that, the competent Court in its considered
wisdom correctly applied the said principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the facts of the
present case.
8.8 Reliance is also placed on in case of
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 415 wherein, Hon'ble the Apex Court
has observed that, if two views are possible on the
basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the
accused has been taken by the trial, it ought not to be
disturbed by the appellate Court or in simple words, it
can be interpreted that "an appellate Court should
not reverse an acquittal merely because another view
is possible" and in the present case, no such
perversity or illegality is demonstrated by the
prosecution, as regards the judgement of acquittal
passed by the competent Court.
8.9 Placing reliance on the above submissions,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
Mr.Dagli lastly submitted that, the appeal is required
to be dismissed.
9. Having heard learned advocates for the
respective parties, the following emerge:
9.1 It is the case of the prosecution that between
10:00 p.m. on 03.08.1995 and 6:30 a.m. on
04.08.1995, the accused no.4 Narwatbhai Manglabhai
i.e. husband of the deceased-Sakriben, Accused no.3-
father-in-law - Manglabhai Lakhabhai Talar, Accused
no.1-mother-in-law - Champaben, accused no.2-
Savitaben - sister-in-law, of the deceased Sakriben
who being close relatives, committed a crime under
Section 498 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
by mentally and physically torturing the deceased -
Sakriben. All the accused, with common intention to
kill deceased - Sakriben, caused injuries to her, which
were sufficient to hold accused responsible for crime
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
the Indian Penal Code. The accused no.4 killed
Sakriben by injuring her on head and with intention
of destroying the evidence of murder, hung her in the
cattle-pen of the house of the accused nos.1 to 4 and
accused no.3-Mangalabhai Lakhabhai, despite
knowing that Sakriben was murdered, with an
intention of saving the accused from punishment,
committed the offense of giving false information of
accidental death to the police and thereby committed
offense under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
9.2 In the aforesaid set of facts, we have considered
the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the
documentary evidences on record and considered the
same with the impugned judgement rendered by the
learned Sessions Court.
9.3 It emerges from the record that, accused no.3 -
the father in law of the deceased Sakriben, upon the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
aforesaid incident having occurred, informed at police
station and a complaint under Section 174 of Criminal
Procedure Code came to be filed below Exh.30. Upon
perusal of the same, it emerges that, it is a
declaration of accidental death. It is narrated by the
said accused no.3 that, at about 7:00 a.m. on
04.08.1995, deceased Sakriben had gone for
sweeping the corridor. The accused no.1 having
noticed that she did not return, went outside only to
find Sakriben hanging by rope. She immediately
informed accused no.3. The accused no.3 informed
his uncle's son Andarabhai - accused no.5, about the
incident and he reached where the alleged incident
had occurred. Deceased's father Kodrabhai was also
present at the place of incident. However, he left
thereafter. It is also stated by the accused no.3 that
Manishaben - the daughter of deceased, was suffering
from diarrhea since seven days. The deceased was
put to harassment during night and therefore, she
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
used to beat Manishaben. The accused no.3 asked
the deceased not to beat her daughter, which the
deceased did not like, she felt bad and it may be due
to the said reason, she had taken the aforesaid
extreme step.
9.4 Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Panchmahal, Godhra, drew the inquest panchnama
which is on record below Exh.21 in presence of three
panchas on even date i.e. 04.08.1995 between 14:30
to 15:30, wherein it was opined that, the cause of
death of the deceased was due to hanging and further
opined to conduct postmortem to know the exact
cause of death. It is further stated that, no significant
marks were found on the body of the deceased and
that the police did not seize anything. PW-1 Danabhai
was examined below Exh.23 and he had supported
the inquest panchnama. In his cross-examination, he
had deposed that deceased Sakriben and her husband
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
had a healthy relationship. Deceased's father was
also present at the place of incident and then he had
left.
9.5 We have perused the deposition of
Dr.Krishnavallav, PW-2 having deposed below Exh.27,
who conducted the postmortem, wherein, it was
deposed that, there were two injuries on the
deceased. One, by rope, which is postmortem and the
other, which was on the left side of head, wherein,
there was a mark of 5 x 4 cms. The cause of death
was due to injury on head by hitting by a blunt
weapon. In the cross-examination, it was admitted
that it could be by shock or fear of dying and it can
also be one of the reasons to cause the death. The
postmortem report is on record below Exh.29, which
corroborates the cause of death being neurogenic
shock due to head injury. The aforesaid is to be
considered harmoniously with the complaint Exh.13
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
lodged by Kodarbhai, father of deceased Sakriben,
having deposed as PW-3, below Exh.37. That, the
complaint was filed upon suspicion, after the son of
the complainant having told him that, they had to file
the complaint. In his cross-examination also it is
deposed that, the relation between the deceased
Sakriben and her husband were cordial, and the
aforesaid also emerges from the depositions of the
other prosecution witnesses that, both the families
had cordial relations and the complainant himself was
at his daughter's residence, to help them. However,
as held by the competent Court, the complaint
appears to be contrary to the record, wherein, it is
alleged that the accused being the family members,
together harassed the deceased Sakriben, resulting in
commission of offense under Section 498 of the
Indian Penal Code.
9.6 In our opinion, the prosecution has failed to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
prove that there was any harassment to deceased
Sakriben. In fact, though the evidence of PW-4 the
mother Daliyaben Kodarbhai is hearsay, it is deposed
by her that though she left from the place of incident
after seeing the body of her daughter deceased-
Sakriben, she did not notice any significant marks on
the body.
9.7 It emerges from the record that, present case is
that of circumstantial evidence, wherein, the
prosecution has failed to establish the chain of
evidence to hold the respondent/accused guilty of
charges levelled against them beyond reasonable
doubt.
9.8 Considering the medical evidence, the death of
the deceased was a result of the blow on head, which,
the prosecution had failed to establish either through
direct or circumstantial evidence. The prosecution
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
was also unable to prove the weapon itself, the blow
of which resulted in death of Sakriben and also, as to
who possessed such weapon. No evidence is led to
the aforesaid effect.
10. At this stage, it is apt to refer to the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raja Naykar v.
State of Chhattisgarh reported in [2024] 3 SCC
481. Relevant paragraphs of the judgement read as
under:
"16. Undoubtedly, the prosecution case
rests on circumstantial evidence. The law
with regard to conviction on the basis of
circumstantial evidence has very well been
crystalized in the judgment of this Court in
the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs.
State of Maharashtra1, wherein this Court
held thus:
"152. Before discussing the cases relied
upon by the High Court we would like to
cite a few decisions on the nature,
character and essential proof required in
a criminal case which rests on
circumstantial evidence alone. The most
fundamental and basic decision of this
Court (1984) 4 SCC 116=1984 INSC 121
is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
[(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 :
1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] . This
case has been uniformly followed and
applied by this Court in a large number
of later decisions up-to-date, for
instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias)
Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3
SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and
Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra
[(1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656]. It
may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J.
has laid down in Hanumant case [(1952)
2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR
1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] :
"12. It is well to remember that in
cases where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should in the first instance be fully
established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as
to exclude every hypothesis but the
one proposed to be proved. In other
words, there must be a chain of
evidence so far complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and it must
be such as to show that within all
human probability the act must have
been done by the accused."
153. A close analysis of this decision
would show that the following conditions
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
must be fulfilled before a case against an
accused can be said to be fully
established:
(1) the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court
indicated that the circumstances
concerned "must or should" and not
"may be" established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction
between "may be proved" and "must be
or should be proved" as was held by this
Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.
State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ
1783] where the observations were
made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p.
1047]
"19. ... Certainly, it is a primary
principle that the accused must be
and not merely may be guilty before a
court can convict and the mental
distance between 'may be' and 'must
be' is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused, that is to
say, they should not be explainable
on any other hypothesis except that
the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
(4) they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to
be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence
so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have
been done by the accused."
154. These five golden principles, if we
may say so, constitute the panchsheel of
the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence."
17. It can thus clearly be seen that it is
necessary for the prosecution that the
circumstances from which the conclusion of
the guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The Court holds that it is a
primary principle that the accused 'must be'
and not merely 'may be' proved guilty
before a court can convict the accused. It
has been held that there is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between
'may be proved' and 'must be or should be
proved'. It has been held that the facts so
established should be consistent only with
the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
It has further been held that the
circumstances should be such that they
exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved. It has been held that there
must be a chain of evidence so complete as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and must show that in all
human probabilities the act must have been
done by the accused.
18. It is settled law that the suspicion,
however strong it may be, cannot take the
place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An
accused cannot be convicted on the ground
of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An
accused is presumed to be innocent unless
proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State
of Rajasthan v. Hanuman reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1387 has held as under:
"7. This Court in the case of Raja Naykar v.
State of Chhattisgarh (2024) 3 SCC 481 held
that mere recovery of a blood-stained
weapon even bearing the same blood group
of the victim would not be sufficient to prove
the charge of murder.
...
9. Law is well settled by a catena of
decisions of this Court that in an appeal
against acquittal, interference can only be
made if the only possible view based on the
evidence points to the guilt of the accused
and rules out his innocence. In the present
case, we are duly satisfied that the
prosecution failed to lead clinching evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/327/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
to bring home the charges. The only
possible view is the one taken by the High
Court, i.e., the innocence of the accused."
12. For the reasons as rendered herein above and in
the facts of the present case as well as in light of the
position of law as referred to hereinabove, no case is
made out to interfere with the impugned judgement
and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in
Sessions Case No.14 of 1996 dated 05.07.1999.
13. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. R
& P, if any called for, to be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J)
ANKIT SHAH
