Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kiransinh Pravinsinh Vaghela on 5 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 655 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KIRANSINH PRAVINSINH VAGHELA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Appellant
MS VAIBHAVI RAVAL for MR CHETAN B RAVAL(2090) for the respondentss
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 05/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case
No.277 of 2007, whereby the respondents accused came to be
acquitted for the offences under sections 498(A), 306,114 of
Indian Penal Code and under section 3 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, the appellant - State has preferred present
appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 ("the Code" for short).
2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that present
respondent-org. accused No.1 married with deceased Hiral and
therefore the accused Nos.2 to 3 are the in- laws of Hiral. It is
the case of prosecution that during marriage life of Hiral,
accused persons were giving her physical and mental torture for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
the inmates matter and for dowry. It is also case of prosecution
that org. accused No.1 at the instance of other accused persons
was giving, physical and mental torture to daughter of
complainant and asked her to bring more dowry about
Rs.20,000/- for making purchase of rickshaw. As the physical
and mental torture in the form of demanding dowry being meted
out at the hands of deceased had crossed limitation, deceased
committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and ignited.
Thus, the accused persons were giving harassment to the
deceased who did not bear the same and committed suicide. On
the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer had
conducted the investigation. Thereafter the statements of the
witnesses were recorded and accused were arrested, as sufficient
evidence to link the accused with the crime was found, the
accused were charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences.
3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant
with the concerned Police Station for the aforesaid offences, the
investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses,
drawn panchnama of scene of offence, discovery and recovery of
weapons and obtained FSL report etc. for the purpose of proving
the offence. After having found sufficient material against the
respondents accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court
of learned JMFC. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the
offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad
City as provided under section 209 of the Code.
4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad City, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
Exh.2 against the respondents accused for the aforesaid
offences. The respondents accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has
examined 7 witnesses and also produced various documentary
evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly
described in para 5 of the impugned judgment and order.
6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution,
the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances
appearing in the evidence to the respondents accused so as to
obtain explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In
the further statement, the respondents accused denied all
incriminating circumstances appearing against them as false
and further stated that they are innocent and false case has
been filed against them.
7. We have heard learned APP Ms. Chintan Dave for the
appellant - State, learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Raval for
learned advocate Mr. Chetan Raval for the respondents accused
and minutely examined oral and documentary evidence adduced
before the learned Trial Court.
8. The thrust of the argument of learned APP is that the
learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the
complainant i.e. father of the deceased namely Gunvantsinh
Chavda at Exh.8 and mother of the deceased namely Vimlaben
Chavda at Exh.10. He would further submit that these two
witness on record conspicuously and starkly proved that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment at the hands
of the accused. However, the learned trial Court without
appreciating and discussing such aspect, acquitted the accused
on the ground that there are inconsistency in the evidence and
therefore, the approach of the learned trial Court is incorrect.
He would further submit that the society is flooded with the
cases of death of bride because of cruelty and harassment being
meted out at the hands of the in-laws and this fact was required
to be kept in mind by the learned trial Court. Mainly upon
above submission, he prays to allow the appeal and quash and
set aside impugned judgment and order and further to convict
the accused for the charges framed against them.
9. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Raval appearing
for learned advocate Mr. Chetan Raval for the respondents
accused would submit that there are only two main witnesses
i.e. father of the deceased and mother of the deceased and both
of them did not continue with their case set out by the
prosecution and they have resile from their earlier statement
made before the police. She would further submit that the
learned Sessions Court has thoroughly discussed this issue in
para 11 to 15 of the impugned judgment and order and
acquitted the accused and therefore, presumption of innocence
is doubled in favour of the respondents accused. Upon such
submission, she prays to dismiss the appeal.
10. In sense, the FIR for the offences punishable u/s 498A and
306 of the IPC stands on the premise that husband of the
deceased was asking dowry to purchase auto-rickshaw and his
parents were instigating him to extend cruelty and harassment
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
to the deceased for satisfying their demand of dowry of
Rs.20,000/- for purchase of auto-rickshaw, which could not
bear by the deceased and ultimately, she committed suicide by
pouring kerosene and setting herself ablaze.
11. In contrast the aforesaid facts for which the charge was
framed by the learned trial Court, if we peruse the evidence
produced by the prosecution, in all seven witnesses are
examined. Among them, father of the deceased namely
Gunvantsinh Chavda was examined at Exh.8, mother of the
deceased namely Vimlaben Chavda was examined at Exh.10 and
Dr. Bhavin Shyamlal Shah was examined at Exh.13. Except
this, no other witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution.
12. If we peruse the evidence of the complainant i.e. father of
the deceased, what can be revealed in the cross-examination
(page 8) that prior to the incident, the accused No.1 has
purchased new auto-rickshaw with the help received from the
doctor. Such aspect itself falsifies the theory of the prosecution.
Then in his deposition, he tried to put the case of culpable
homicide amounting to murder. According to the deposition of
witness Dr. Bhavinbhai, the accused have poured kerosene on
herself and set her ablaze. However, the witness has not set up
such case in the FIR or further statement nor it is the case of the
prosecution. A clear improvisation is there and that
improvisation itself speaks fallacy of the evidence.
13. Witness Vimlaben - mother of the deceased in her
deposition at Exh.10, deposed about cruelty and harassment
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
being extended to the deceased. However, this deposition is
general in nature and no specific averment about any incident is
deposed. Another deposition of demanding Rs.20,000/- towards
dowry for purchase of auto-rickshaw itself falsifies from the
deposition of the complainant recorded at Exh.8.
14. Dr. Bhavin Shah, who deposition is recorded at Exh.13, in
his deposition, has ruled out the theory of murder or accidental
death. He deposed that it is a case of suicide.
15. What could be noticeable that the learned trial Court in
para 11 to 15 of the impugned judgment has thoroughly
evaluated the evidence of the prosecution and ascribed reasons
that how the prosecution case fell short of achieving standard of
"beyond reasonable doubt". The findings of the learned trial
Court also indicate about existence of sheer contradiction and
improvisation in the deposition of star witnesses and became
root cause to stultify prosecution case. In view of above, this
Court finds no sufficient material to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order of recording acquittal.
16. To be noted that since the trial court's judgment
acquitted the accused, reinforce the presumption of
innocence, the appellant State needs to present a much
stronger case to overturn the original verdict and secure a
conviction.
17. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in
an acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then also, the
appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the
acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong,
manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. (Ramesh
Babulal Doshi V. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225). In the
instant case, the learned APP for the applicant has not been able
to point out to us as to how the findings recorded by the learned
trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably
wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.
18. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in
AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of
acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own
conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as
extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction.
But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court
should give proper weight and consideration to the view of
the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness,
the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the
right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the
slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact
arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the
witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which
the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused
are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely
and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court
should not disturb the order of acquittal."
19. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
(2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar
Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
(2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal,
unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be
perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat
circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is
possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands
and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the
trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
20. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, no case is made out to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
present Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed. Bail bond stands cancelled.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
