Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Gaurangkumar Mathurbhai Leuva on 5 July, 2025

Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/1283/1999                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1283 of 1999

                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                       HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
                       and
                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS

                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                        Yes           No

                       ==========================================================
                                                  STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                        Versus
                                         GAURANGKUMAR MATHURBHAI LEUVA & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
                       1,2,3,4,5
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
                                and
                                HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS

                                                              Date : 05/07/2025

                                             ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS)

1. By this appeal, arises out of the judgment dated

07/10/1999 passed in Sessions Case No.27 of 1998 on the file

of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural)

at Gandhinagar whereby the respondents-accused were

acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under

Sections 304(B), 306, 498(A) read with Sections 34 and 114 of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1283/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025

undefined

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased by

name Anjuben (herein after referred to as 'the deceased') is

the legally wedded wife of A-1. Their marriage was

solemnized on 23/02/1996. A-2 is the brother-in-law, A-3 is

the father-in-law, A-4 is the mother-in law and A-5 is the sister-

in-law of the deceased. The deceased resided in joint family

in Sector-22 at Gandhinagar. It is stated that after the

marriage, all the accused have subjected her to cruelty by

harassing her and demanded the dowry. It is further stated

that the deceased informed to her parents and uncle about the

demand of dowry and harassment.

2.1. It is further stated that on 08/01/1998, at about 9:45

a.m., the deceased talked with her father about the

harassment. Thereafter, the deceased committed the suicide

in the house of the accused.

3. After registration of the complaint by the complainant

Kamleshbhai Parmar, the father of the deceased, investigation

was carried out and on completion of the investigation, charge

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1283/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025

undefined

sheet was filed before the concerned magistrate court. As the

case was exclusively triable by the learned sessions division,

the same was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge,

Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar.

4. In the trial court, the charges for the aforesaid offences

were framed against the accused. The accused denied the

charges and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined the witnesses and

produced the ocular evidence and also filed the documentary

evidence to prove the charges against the accused.

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, further

statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure were recorded with regard to

incriminating circumstances made in the evidences rendered

by the prosecution and they have denied it.

7. The defense side also examined the defense witnesses

and produced the documentary evidences in form of

photographs of happy marriage life of the deceased with the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1283/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025

undefined

accused.

8. At the end of the trial, after considering the evidence on

record, the trial court found the accused not guilty and

acquitted them of the said charges.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the

State has preferred the present appeal challenging the

legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.

10. When the appeal come up for hearing, we have heard

learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma for the appellant-State and

learned advocate Mr.Vishal k. Aanandjiwala for the

respondents-accused on the facts as well as provisions of law.

11. Learned APP submitted at length the facts of the charges

levelled against the accused, the marriage span of the

deceased and referred the ocular and documentary evidences

produced by the prosecution.

12. Learned APP vehemently argued that the deceased

committed the suicide within a period of seven years and the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1283/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025

undefined

learned trial court have to consider the provisions of Section

113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned APP further

referred to the ocular evidence of father, mother and uncle of

the deceased and vehemently argued that the prosecution has

able to prove the facts of the cruelty and further referred the

ocular evidence of all three witnesses and submitted that the

prosecution has able to prove the demand of dowry.

13. Learned APP submitted at length the fact of medical

evidence and vehemently argued that the deceased committed

the suicide and it is an unnatural death of the deceased and

further submitted the fact of FSL analysis report of saree and

vehemently argued that the deceased hanged on fan with

saree. It is further submitted that as per the opinion of FSL,

the saree was bearing the weight of 90 kg. It is further

submitted that conduct of the accused persons are admissible

in evidence and vehemently argued that A-3 mislead the

doctor and not disclosed the correct fact that she has

committed suicide by hanging.

14. Learned APP further submitted that the reasons

recorded in the impugned judgment while acquitting the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1283/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025

undefined

accused are improper and unwarranted to the facts of the

case and the impugned judgment is required to be quashed

and set aside and lastly prayed to allow this appeal.

15. Pre-pondra, learned advocate for the respondents

accused submitted at length the facts and provisions of law.

16. Learned advocate for the respondents accused

submitted that all three witnesses i.e. father, mother and

uncle of the deceased are interested witnesses and no any

independent witness supported the prosecution case.

17. Learned advocate for the respondents accused referred

the ocular evidence of three important witnesses and

vehemently argued that there are major contradictions,

omissions in the evidence. It is further submitted that all the

major contradictions and omissions are proved in the

deposition of the Investigation Officer.

18. Learned advocate for the respondents accused further

submitted that the defense side also examined the witnesses

and produced the photographs and proved the fact of happy

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1283/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025

undefined

marriage life of the deceased.

19. Learned advocate of respondents accused further

submitted the fact that the deceased herself said to A-1,

husband not visit to her parental home. Learned advocate for

the respondents accused further submitted that the learned

trial court, after appreciating the evidence, recorded the

findings which are just and proper and not require any

interference of this Court in this appeal.

20. The marital relationship between A-1 and the deceased

is not in dispute. Their marriage was solemnized on

23/02/1996. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on

08/01/1998 is also not in controversy. Therefore, admittedly,

her suicidal death took place within seven years of her

marriage. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused

have subjected her to cruelty and harassed her and unable to

bear the said harassment that she committed suicide.

21. It is well settled law that in order to prove the case

under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, relating to a

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1283/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025

undefined

dowry death, it must be shown that (1) the female person died

either because of burn injuries or any bodily injuries or under

unnatural circumstances, (2) the said death must be within

seven years of marriage and (3) soon before her death, it must

be shown that she was harassed for dowry or in connection

with any demand for dowry.

22. In the instant case, although it is the specific case of the

prosecution that the accused have harassed the deceased and

subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and demanded

dowry from her, considering the serious allegations against

the accused and considering the ocular evidence of material

witnesses who are examined as PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 who are

father, mother and maternal uncle of the deceased i.e. the

evidence of three material witnesses, there are major

contradictions and omissions in the oral evidence and all the

contradictions and omissions are proved during the deposition

of the Investigation Officer, PW-8.

23. The complainant stated the fact in his ocular evidence

that on an unfortunate day when the deceased committed

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1283/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025

undefined

suicide, before the incident, she called him. The said

important aspect during the deposition not disclosed any

telephone number and no investigation on this important fact.

24. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the the fact that

she was subjected to any harassment or cruelty for or in

connection with the dowry as required under the law to prove

the offences under Section 304(B) and 498(A) of the Indian

Penal Code. The necessary legal requirement to prove the

said offences are not established in this case. The major

contradictions and omissions in the material witnesses are

fatal to the root of the prosecution case.

25. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the

principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of

appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by

the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the

Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S.

Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.,

(2006) 6 S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has narrated the powers

of High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In

Paragraph-54 of the said decision, the Apex Court has

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1283/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025

undefined

observed as under:

"54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below."

25.1. Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of

Karnataka, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, the Apex Court has laid

down the following principle;

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

[1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

[3] Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1283/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025

undefined

nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

[4] An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.

[5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court."

25.2. In the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr.,

(2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court reiterated the powers of

the High Court in such cases. In Paragraph-16 of the said

decision, the Court observed as under;

"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1283/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025

undefined

review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re- appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with."

25.3. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court

in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh

& Ors, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in Girja Prasad

(Dead) by LRs Vs. State of MP reported in 2007 A.I.R.

S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may

exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled.

25.4. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal,

the appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or

to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the

Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is

laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of

Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy reported in AIR 1981 S.C.

1417, wherein, it is held as under:

"... This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1283/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025

undefined

SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate Court when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

26. Considering the impugned judgment and order of the

learned trial Court and the aforesaid reasoning and bearing in

mind the statutory provisions, as well as the judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the present appeal does not warrant any interference in

the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial

Court. We find that the findings recorded by the learned trial

Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said

findings, no illegality and infirmity has been committed by it.

We are therefore, in complete agreement with the findings

and ultimate conclusion recorded by the learned trial Court

and there is no reasons to interfere with the same.