Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sartanbhai Kodarbhai Parmar on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1530/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1530 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SARTANBHAI KODARBHAI PARMAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 08/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH
ROY)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 29.06.2013 passed
in Sessions Case No.99 of 2012 on the file of the learned 4 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod whereby the respondents
herein, who were A-1 and A-2 in the said case, were acquitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1530/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
of the charges under Section 498A and 306 of IPC and
alternative charges under Sections 304 and 302 read with
Section 114 of the IPC.
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that Shaniben is
the wife of A-1. Shaniben is hereinafter referred to as the
deceased. The marriage between A-1 and the deceased took
place about more than seven years ago and they are blessed
with two sons and one daughter during their lawful wedlock.
A-2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is stated that A-1
and A-2 used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased attributing
an illegal affair of her with some unknown person and that they
used to harass her. While so, on 13.03.2012 at about 6:50 pm
when there was an altercation between the deceased and the
accused in the house, it is stated that A-1 and A-2 have given
poison to the deceased and she consumed the same. She was
taken to the Devgadh Baria Hospital where P.W.-15 has given
preliminary treatment to her and she was referred to General
Hospital, Dahod. P.W.-16, who is the doctor, treated her in the
said hospital but she died on 14.03.2012 while taking treatment
in the hospital. On the report lodged by the father of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1530/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
deceased, who is examined as P.W.-4, a case was registered
against the A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable under
Section 498A and 306 of IPC and in the alternative under
Section 304 and 302 read with 114 of IPC. Autopsy was held
over the dead body of the deceased after conducting inquest.
P.W.-10, the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead
body opined that the cause of her death was cardio-respiratory
arrest due to organo phosphorous poison mono chlorophyll
effect.
3. After completion of the investigation, police filed the charge-
sheet against A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable under
Section 498A and 306 and alternatively under Section 304, 302
read with Section 114 of IPC.
4. In the trial Court, the charges under Section 498A and 306 of
IPC and alternative charges under Sections 304 and 302 read
with Section 114 of the IPC are framed against A-1 and A-2.
They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution got examined
P.W.- 1 to P.W.-16 witnesses and got marked 18 exhibits to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1530/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
prove its case against the accused. At the end of the trial, after
considering the oral and documentary evidences on record, the
learned Trial Judge found the accused not guilty for any of the
charges leveled against them and acquitted them of the said
charges.
6. Dissatisfied and feeling aggrieved with the said judgment of
acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal questioning
the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.
7. When the appeal came-up for hearing, we have heard the
learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the State. Despite service
of notice on respondent nos.1 and 2, none appeared for them.
8. The medical evidence on record proves that the deceased died
due to cardio-respiratory arrest due to organo phosphorous
poison mono chlorophyll effect. Exhibit-34 is the Postmortem
Report issued to that effect. P.W.-10 is the Doctor who
conducted autopsy and testified regarding the cause of death of
the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.-10 coupled with
exhibit-34 proves that she died of consuming poison. Now, the
question is whether she has voluntarily taken the said poison
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1530/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
and thereby committed suicide or whether it was administered
to her by A-1 and A-2 and thereby committing murder of the
deceased. If it is found that she has voluntarily taken the poison
and committed suicide, the next question that arises is whether
the accused abetted her to commit suicide and thereby
committed offence under Section 306 of IPC or not.
9. As can be seen from the evidence on record, there is no
authenticated evidence which is forthcoming to prove that the
accused have administered the said poison to her and thereby
committed murder of her, which is punishable under Section
302 of IPC. As per the record, there is no eye-witness to the
incident to prove that A-1 and A-2 have administered the
poison to the deceased and thereby killed her. P.W.-1, who is
the relative of P.W.-4, who is the father of the deceased stated
that he did not see the accused giving poison to the deceased.
No circumstances are emanating from the evidence on record to
hold that it is the accused who have administered the poison to
the deceased.
10. Similarly, there is no evidence to prove that the accused have
given poison to deceased and thereafter she has consumed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1530/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
same. In fact, the prosecution itself is not certain and has no
clarity whether it is a case of abetment to commit suicide or
whether it is a case of committing murder of the deceased. That
is why they have come-up with two charges, one is under
Section 498A and 306 of IPC and the other is alternatively
under Section 304 and 302 of IPC. So, it is clear that they have
no clarity whether the accused have given poison to the
deceased and she has committed the suicide and thereby the
accused abetted her to commit suicide or not or whether the
accused have administered the poison to the deceased or not.
There is any amount of ambiguity in the version of the
prosecution. Therefore, though it is established in this case
through medical evidence that the deceased died due to
consumption of poison, it is not proved and established by any
acceptable legal evidence that the said poison was administered
by the accused to her or that the accused have abetted her to
commit suicide. To prove an offence under Section 306 IPC of
abetment to commit suicide, the necessary pre-requisites
contemplated under Section 107 of IPC relating to intentional
instigation given to the deceased to commit suicide or
intentionally aid said to have been given to the deceased to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1530/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
commit suicide are to be established. There is no evidence on
record to establish the said pre-requisites contemplated under
Section 107 of IPC. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the case against the accused either under Section
306 or alternatively under Section 304 and 302 of IPC.
11. According to the prosecution, the accused used to suspect the
character of deceased. It is also the case of the prosecution that
they used to harass her but what is the nature of the said
harassment and whether it is in relation to any demand for
dowry, property or valuable security or not is not made clear
from the facts of the case and from the evidence on record.
Every harassment by itself will not constitute an offence of
cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A of IPC. It is only
the harassment which is made for or in connection with any
demand for dowry, property or valuable security that
constitutes an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.
Further, there must be evidence in proof of the conduct of the
accused which is of such grave nature, which would drive a
woman to cause harm to her limb or body and to put an end to
her life to prove an offence under Section 498A of IPC also.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1530/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
The said proof is lacking in the case. Except making a bald
assertion that they used to suspect her character, no valid
evidence is emanating from the record in proof of the said fact.
Therefore, the offence under Section 498A is also not made out
from the facts of the case.
12. From the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, several
inconsistent and contradictory versions are emanating regarding
the accusation made by the prosecution against the accused.
Therefore, the evidence that was adduced is not of any sterling
worth to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused
beyond any reasonable doubt. It is a well established principle
of law of criminal jurisprudence that strict proof of the
accusation made against the accused is essential to prove an
offence against accused as per the allegations ascribed against
them. Such strict proof is miserably lacking in the case.
Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish
whether it is a case of suicidal death or homicidal death. There
is any amount of doubt relating to the same. Therefore, the said
benefit of doubt shall necessarily go to the accused. At any rate,
the accused is atleast entitled to benefit of doubt in the facts and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1530/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
circumstances of the case.
13. Upon considering the evidence on record and on proper
appreciation of the same, the trial Court rightly found the
accused not guilty for the charges leveled against them and
acquitted them of the said charges. After considering the said
evidence on record and re-appraisal of the same, we are also of
the same view and we are in concurrence with the findings
recorded by the trial Court. So, we do not find any manifest
error of law or patent illegality in the impugned judgment of
acquittal of the trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment
warrants no interference in this appeal. The appeal fails and is
liable to be dismissed.
14. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of
acquittal of the trial Court. The bail bonds, if any, of the
respondents shall stand discharged. The R&P shall be sent back
to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
Anuj
