Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pradipsinh Ajitsinh Rana on 1 July, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1843 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI Sd/-
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRADIPSINH AJITSINH RANA & ANR.
======================================
Appearance:
MS. MEGHA CHITALIA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. Y.J. PATEL(3985) for Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Code") by the State of Gujarat challenging the judgment and
order of acquittal recorded by Presiding Officer - Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Vadodara
dated 27.05.2010 rendered in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2009,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
whereby respondents - accused came to be acquitted of the
charge punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") as also
under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. As per the case of the prosecution, accused No.1 is
the husband of deceased - Deepikaben and he was taunting
his wife that she is not liked by him and she was also beaten.
So far as the accused No.2 is concerned, who is the mother in
law of the deceased, it is alleged that she used to taunt that
she has not brought sufficient dowry and her father has not
given anything to them. It is further alleged that since they
were to construct a house, it was asked to have a lakh or two
from her father. Thus, it is alleged that accused were
demanding dowry from the deceased.
2.1 It is further alleged that respondent No.2 herein,
being mother in law of the deceased - Deepikaben, was
inciting accused No.1 and thereby, accused No.1 used to beat
her.
2.2 It is further alleged that they were demanding her
ornaments to be utilized for the purpose of constructing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
house. Thus, by inflicting such physical and mental cruelty, it is
alleged that deceased - Deepikaben was compelled to commit
suicide and she consumed some poison and thereby, suicide of
the deceased - Deepikaben was said to have been abetted by
the respondent - accused and for that, they have been
prosecuted for the offence as alleged.
2.3 On registration of the FIR at the instance of the
father of the deceased, investigation was carried out and on
conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has come to be filed
against the accused. Since the offence against the accused
was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the
Court of Sessions.
2.4 On charge being framed against the accused for the
aforesaid offence, they pleaded not guilty to the charge and
claimed to be tried. Therefore, to prove the case against the
accused, prosecution had examined nearly 9 witnesses and
have produced and proved nearly 21 documents.
2.5 On recording further statement of the accused
under Section 313 of "the Code", arguments on behalf of the
prosecution as also the accused were heard.
2.6 On hearing the learned APP and the advocate for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
the accused as also on appreciation of evidence led before it,
learned Judge gave benefit of doubt to the accused, and
therefore, aforesaid order of acquittal came to be recorded in
favour of them.
3. Ms. Megha Chitalia, learned APP for appellant -
State, submitted that the complainant - father of the
deceased, her mother, her uncle as also her cousins have
supported the case of prosecution, so far as cruelty being
inflicted upon the deceased, which led her to commit suicide,
is concerned, and therefore, prosecution has proved the case
beyond reasonable doubt.
3.1 Not only that, she has further submitted that the
primary cause of death given by Dr. Bharatsinh Mansinh
Chauhan, who performed post-mortem over the dead body of
the deceased - Deepikaben, opined that death is because of
'poisoning'.
3.2 At the same time, according to her submission,
nothing is brought on record by way of any contemporaneous
record or even deposition of any of the witnesses that, final
cause of death was ever obtained and/or given. Post-mortem
note Exhibit-16 reveals at page 78 of the paper-book in column
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
for the 'probable cause of death' to be "Cardio respiratory
arrest due to poisoning". Therefore, she has submitted that
either it may be a case of murder or a case of suicide.
3.3 Since there is no case of murder pleaded by the
prosecution, it is a case of suicide by consuming poison.
Therefore, she has submitted that deposition of the relatives of
the victim is corroborated by the medical evidence and the
cruelty was so proximate that there was no other alternative to
her but to commit suicide.
3.4 Drawing attention of the Court to the deposition of
PW1 - Bhikhusinh Chandrasinh Gohil - first-informant as also
his complaint, it is submitted that he received at about 2:30
p.m. a phone call at 05.01.2009, when the deceased was at
her parental home, from accused No.1, which was received by
deceased - Deepikaben and he administered threat to her that
if she of her own doesn't return back to the matrimonial home,
she would be taken from there while beating. Therefore,
according to the complaint, on 06.01.2009, deceased -
Deepikaben went alone to her matrimonial home. Thereafter,
within few days i.e. on 09.01.2009, alleged incident has
occurred.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
3.5 She has further submitted that though there
appears no marks of external injury over the body of the
deceased, fact remains that some drug/medication was
already there immediately prior to her death, within proximate
time.
3.6 She has further submitted that even whitish
particles were found in "upper third of Trachea" and with
question mark, 'Aspiration' is written.
3.7 Drawing attention of the Court to column No. 20 of
the post-mortem note, Exhibit-16, it is submitted that 'white
food particles/froth' was also seen in 'upper third of
Oesophagus'. Therefore, she has submitted that though no
poison or any drug is found in viscera or blood, cause of death
opined by the Doctor appears to be correct, so far as death
due to poisoning, maybe 'cardio respiratory arrest', as a result
of it.
3.8 She has further submitted that though complaint is
somewhat late filed by the father of the deceased, when
explanation is offered thereof, it cannot be said that case is
concocted one.
3.9 She has further submitted that prior to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
registration of offence, an accidental death case was
registered. It is because of that reason, post-mortem of the
dead body of the deceased was performed, which is giving
some clue about the cause of death, otherwise there would not
be any corroborative material left behind to prove case against
the accused.
3.10 She has further submitted that as per the deposition
of the parents and relatives of the deceased, on accidental
death case being registered, when their statements were
recorded by the Police, what was informed to them by the
accused and his relatives, only that was disclosed before the
Police. At the same time, immediately on the next day of the
death or rather the same day, they may not be in a position to
state the truth before the Police, keeping in mind the welfare
of a child as well. Therefore, late filing of the complaint being
sufficiently explained, it could not be considered as a ground
for recording an order of acquittal.
3.11 She has further submitted that since she had to
leave her parental home within a day on phone call being
received from her husband, all alone, the intention and
intensity of the cruelty inflicted upon deceased can be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
visualized, it is of such serious nature, that within 3 days
thereof, she had to commit suicide.
3.12 She has further submitted that as evidence led
before the Court, accused No.1 is in habit of drinking liquor and
having illicit relations with one widow in the village. As
informed by the deceased to her mother, PW-2 - Kanuben, as
and when she used to visit her parental home, that after
consuming liquor, when he comes home, he used to tell that
she is not liked by him. It is only because of his parents, he had
to marry her. The said taunting is also coupled with beating.
3.13 She has further submitted that respondent No. 2
was always demanding her ornaments to build house. Not only
that, she was asked by her to bring money from her parents.
She was also beaten by her husband at the provocation of her
mother in law, by accused No. 1.
3.14 Therefore, she has submitted that reasons assigned
by the learned Judge for recording an order of acquittal is
erroneous, illegal and requires to be interfered by this Court,
while exercising powers as appellate Court to reverse the same
and convict the accused for the aforesaid offences while
imposing suitable punishment against them.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
4. As against that, Mr. Y.J. Patel, learned advocate for
the accused, submitted that the entire case against the
accused is nothing but an afterthought.
4.1 He has further submitted that not only when
deceased came out of the bathroom and fell down because of
dizziness, she was immediately taken to the hospital for the
purpose of treatment. Simultaneously, father of the accused
No. 1 and his other relatives along with near relative of the
first-informant, who is also staying in the village of the accused
No.1, immediately sent to the parental home of the deceased
to inform and bring them in the hospital. If at all there is ill-
intention on the part of the accused, as submitted by the
learned advocate for the respondent - accused, no prompt
action either for the purpose of treatment or informing her
parents would have been taken by the accused.
4.2 He has further submitted that all efforts have been
made by the accused to get her treatment, and therefore,
immediately she was taken to the nearest hospital of Dr.
Bhavin in the village itself and on his advice, she was taken to
Karjan Community Health Centre. However, she could not be
saved, that doesn't mean that accused have committed an
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
offence, that too, an offence of abetment of suicide committed
by the deceased. Hence, on her death, post-mortem of the
dead body was performed and an accidental death case came
to be registered and inquired into by the Police.
4.3 It is further submitted that pursuant to an
accidental death case inquiry, even statement of all relatives
of the deceased, including the first-informant were recorded
not only by PSI/PI but by an Officer of the rank of Dy.S.P.,
despite that neither of the witnesses have ever complained
against any of the accused or of any ill-treatment, which they
have deposed to before the Court. The said reactions of the
witnesses were very prompt and in proximate time. Thereafter,
for the reasons best known to them, a written complaint, after
about 3 months to the date of incident, came to be filed by the
father of the deceased. If at all witnesses were made to believe
that it is a natural death and the reason what accused stated is
even accepted by them, even if not correct, it would be made
known to them within a week or a month. It may not take
months together to file a complaint against the accused or
allege anything about physical or mental cruelty, which led her
to commit suicide.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
4.4 He has further submitted that despite it is revealed
that she was taken to the local Doctor - Dr. Bhavin, there
appears no statement recorded of him or even examination by
the prosecution, so that first-hand information would be
available. That goes against the prosecution.
4.5 He has further submitted that though report of the
FSL acknowledges that sample Mark-A/4, which was in a sealed
card box in a small glass bottle, white coloured stuff was there.
It was stated to be tablet from material collected from the
tongue at the time of arrival of the dead body mentioned.
Despite that, who collected and how it was known to collecting
person that there is some tablet inside the mouth and the
tongue. Not only that, sample Mark-A claimed to have been
sent in 4 bottles by the Doctor while collecting viscera, but
what all 4 bottles contained is also mentioned by him to be:-
In Bottle No.1: "Stomach with its Contents",
In Bottle No.2: "Pieces of Spleen, left Lung, right Lung,
Liver, Heart and Kidney",
In Bottle No.3: "EDTA BULB 07 Blood", and
In Bottle No.4: "Plain Bulb of blood", as mentioned in
post-mortem note Exhibit-16.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
At no point of time, even at the time of arrival of
dead body, Dr Bharatsinh Chauhan ever stated in his
deposition or even in any contemporaneous record it is
recorded that such a tablet was collected from the tongue at
the time of arrival of dead body. Therefore, he has submitted
that case is full of mysteries and it has been created after
about 3 months from the date of incident by the complainant.
4.6 He has further submitted that as admitted by the
complainant - father of the deceased, since 4 years prior to the
marriage, deceased was suffering from low blood pressure and
her treatment was going on, which was continued even after
her marriage at her in-laws' house.
4.7 He has also submitted that at the time of receiving
dead body, after conclusion of post-mortem, not only the
complainant but his all male relatives were there in the
hospital and they readily and happily took the dead body to
the house of the accused. Not only that, they performed all
rituals at the house of the husband - accused No.1.
4.8 Drawing attention of the Court to the cross-
examination of the complainant, where he had to admit that
when first Police came to them, he had informed the Police
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
that she might have dizziness because of low blood pressure
on the date of incident and because of that reason, it might
have happened. Not only that, it is mentioned before the Police
at that time, as admitted in the cross-examination, that
deceased - Deepikaben had no any trouble at her in laws'
house and for her death, he has no suspicion at all over
anyone. Therefore, he has submitted that a false case is
created against the accused, and therefore, when Court, who
conducted the trial after recording sound reasons, acquitted
the accused, even if two views are possible from the evidence
led, the view, which is favorable to the accused, has to be
accepted, this Court may not interfere with the judgment and
order of acquittal and dismiss the appeal.
5. Having heard the learned APP as also Mr. Y.J. Patel,
learned advocate for the respondent - accused and
examining, in detail, the evidence led before the Court, not
only the investigation but the deposition of Doctor and FSL
report creates so many doubts to be answered.
5.1 Though one Vikramsinh, who happens to be the
brother in law of the first-informant, who stays in the very
village where accused and deceased were staying, is referred
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
everywhere by the complainant and his statement was also
recorded, prosecution has not examined him before the Court,
maybe for the reason that he may not support the belated
case pleaded by the first-informant.
5.2 Most surprisingly, though nowhere mentioned in the
examination-in-chief of the first-informant, as recorded in the
deposition, witness had not supported the statement or
complaint, surprisingly, without stating any reason, learned
APP requested the Court to cross-examine him declaring
hostile. Not only that, learned Judge has also readily granted
the same, for filling up of lacuna when witness omits to state
something which is already stated in the complaint, which is
also drafted after about 3 months from the date of incident.
Thereafter, surprisingly, what he omitted in his examination-in-
chief, he had started admitting and stating that it had
happened and he had so stated before the Court. It appears to
be a novel idea by the Prosecutor, which should be checked by
the Court before granting any permission to declare a witness
hostile, that too, for no reason, and permit him to cross-
examine him. In this case, so far as the first-informant - father
of the deceased and PW-2 - mother of the deceased were
permitted to declare them hostile and APP cross-examined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
them, in a similar manner, PW-1 was cross-examined, for the
part, which were omitted to be stated in examination-in-chief.
5.3 Be that as it may, even Investigating Officer has
also not conducted the investigation in a proper manner.
Though post-mortem note Exhibit-16 revealed only 4 bottles
were prepared by the Doctor collecting viscera, etc.. Under a
forwarding note, the Investigating Officer sent not only one box
containing 4 bottles but a sealed cover claimed to be collected
by the Doctor, while performing post-mortem, was also sent,
which is at Exhibit-22 page 87 of the paper-book. Along with
those two articles, one paper-cover was also sent containing
four tablets each of different colour and a wrapper of drug in a
plastic bag, which was seized from the scene of offence, only
those sealed sample bottles of viscera and these tablets found
from the scene of offence were given Mark-A and B, whereas
one sealed cover (What it did contain is still a mystery) was not
given any mark to be examined. Even Police Officer or Doctor
have not stated anything about the same in their deposition
what was the sealed cover.
What contained in the 4 glass bottles as a part of
viscera is very well written by the Doctor in the post-mortem
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
note, to be 'Stomach with contents, pieces of different parts of
the body of deceased, EDTA BULB 07 blood as also plain bulb
of blood', nowhere it refers about collecting any tablet from a
tongue at the time of arrival of dead body mentioned even as
any article sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the
purpose of examination. Still however, as Mark-A/4, it has been
stated to be a tablet from material collected from tongue at
the time of arrival of the dead body written on that Mark-A/4.
Thereafter, it appears that two blood bottles, one EDTA and
one plain bulb of blood were shown to be a part of one box,
which was given Mark-A 3/1 and 3/2. Still however, what was
there in one sealed cover sent to FSL for examination and
whether it is examined or not, is not deposed to by Doctor,
Police Officer or even FSL Officer.
5.4 Be that as it may, even that tablet was found to be
a drug used for anti-convulsions/anti-epileptic drug, named
'Lamotrigine'. Again, it is no poison but the drug used by the
persons, who suffers convulsions, whereas remaining articles
were also found to be a drug and from any of the articles, no
poison or any drug was found by the Forensic Science
Laboratory. The report of Scientific Officer from Forensic
Science Laboratory in respect of viscera and articles collected,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
cuts at the very root of an opinion of a Doctor that, the cause
of death is by poisoning. Be that as it may, neither even the
final cause of death appears to have been obtained by the
Investigating Officer nor given by the Doctor after examination
of samples by Forensic Science Laboratory and is produced
before the Court. If at all there is any tablet found from the
tongue at the time of arrival of the dead body and collected by
the Doctor or even by the staff of the hospital, it would have
been reflected from the post-mortem note or from the person,
who collected the same. The Doctor - PW-5 Exhibit-14/A, Dr.
Bharatsinh Mansinh Chauhan, has nowhere stated the same in
his deposition. Not only that, he has not stated about any final
cause of death being given by him.
5.5 As per his examination-in-chief itself, as recorded in
Column No.12 of the post-mortem note Exhibit-16, "mouth was
found to be closed and tongue bitten b/w upper and lower
jaw". The said situation would be there, when a person having
convulsions at the time of incident. Even according to the
deposition of the father of the deceased, she was suffering
from low blood pressure and at times, she had convulsions and
because of that reasons, the incident might have occurred.
This was the first reaction of the father of the deceased when
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
police approached them after registering the accidental death
case.
5.6 Not only that, statement of all the relatives of the
deceased were recorded pursuant to an accidental death case
registered, by two Police Officers of different cadres before
whom, as admitted by all the witnesses that they had no
complaint about anything against anyone, much less the
accused. They, not also showed any doubt for the death of the
deceased, much less raising any suspicion over accused for the
same. It is further submitted that wild allegations made in a
written complaint after 3 months given to the Police, which is
registered as an offence, are also not stated before the Police
when their statements were recorded pursuant to accidental
death case. Even explanation offered by the witnesses is also
not reliable. If at all deceased had informed the parents or
even the mother alone about habit of consuming liquor of the
husband and beating her under influence of it and even
harassment or even cruelty meted out by demanding dowry by
any of the accused, if not immediately after accidental case is
registered, within a reasonable time maybe of a week or even
10 days or even a couple of weeks, they may have
immediately informed the Police about the same, whereas here
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
witnesses have come out with such a story, that too, in writing
after about 3 months to the incident.
5.7 On re-appreciation of evidence of the father, mother
and other relatives of the deceased, they are not found to be
reliable and free from doubt. Since their depositions are not
reliable at all for the aforesaid reasons, and it has been
recorded by the learned Judge also while passing an order of
acquittal, there also, on certain aspects, there is no
corroboration in between the witnesses when it is ascertained
by some of the prosecution witnesses that accused No.1
administered threat that, if deceased doesn't return back to
the matrimonial home, he would take her by beating, whereas
other witnesses have a different story to tell that. Over the
phone, accused No.1 informed Bharatsinh Jaswantsinh Jadav,
PW-4, who happens to be the cousin of the deceased, who
stays just nearby the house of the complainant, he says in his
deposition that, 'when phone of accused No.1 was received by
deceased - Deepikaben, she was nervous, and therefore, he
took the phone from her, where accused No.1 informed
witness Bharatsinh that if you don't send Deepika to her
matrimonial home, he would commit suicide'. Like absence of
consistent evidence with regard to the so called cruelty or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
harassment, which might compel anyone to commit suicide,
even depositions of the witnesses are also inconsistent with
each other on most material aspects. Not only that, it has been
created after about 3 months in writing, despite that, there is
no consistency in between the witnesses on material aspects.
5.8 Vikramsinh, who happens to be the brother in law of
the complainant, staying in the village where accused No.1
stays, was all-throughout present along with the accused after
the incident occurred, taking her to the hospital and then went
to call the complainant and his relatives alongwith the Father
of accused, though his statement is recorded, he is not
examined before the Court. As such, each and every witnesses
are not required to be examined before the Court, but fact
remains that Vikramsinh, who stays in the village itself of the
accused and who happens to be the paternal uncle of the
deceased, he would be the best witness if at all there is any
cruelty meted out to her even prior to the date of incident. Not
only that, from the date of incident also, when he was easily
available in the village and accompanied the accused in the
hospital as also going with the father of the accused No.1 to
bring the complainant and their relatives, he would have been
the best witness on the issue of cruelty or harassment or the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
circumstances under which deceased either committed suicide
or someone has poisoned her. Not only prosecution is satisfied
with the case of suicide by the deceased, on top of the same,
even Doctor himself has admitted that, possibility of death
being natural is also there. Thus, even the opinion of the
Doctor that though not proved on record as final cause of
death, 'cardio respiratory arrest due to poisoning' is also not
corroborated by any other attending circumstances or
evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Along with the
said opinion of the Doctor that death may be natural as well,
no accused can be convicted for an offence of abetment to
commit suicide punishable under Section 306 of "the IPC" on
such evidence.
5.9 As recorded by the learned Judge, while recording
the order of acquittal, when complainant along with all his
relatives, including wife, had come to the matrimonial home of
their deceased daughter, they visited hospital and even also
attended the last rituals of deceased without any dispute or
any complaint. All of a sudden, after 3 months i.e. on
07.04.2009, making such allegations, a written complaint has
come to be filed, which inspires no confidence in respect of
truth contained in it.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1843/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
6. Since the evidence led before the Court considered
along with the material produced and proved before the Court,
inspiring no confidence about the reliability of the depositions
of the witnesses, when learned Judge has also given benefit of
doubt to the accused, it cannot be interfered with even on
reappreciation of the same, being satisfied, about the
reliability of the depositions, I see no reason to interfere with
the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge.
7. Even if two views are possible, the view, which is
favorable to the accused is to be accepted in an acquittal
appeal, here, no other view, other than the view taken by the
learned Judge, is possible even on reappreciation of evidence
by this Court, no interference is called for in this appeal.
Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial
Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.)
Raj
