Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Parvatiben W/O Pareshbhai Shantilal ... on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 314 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PARVATIBEN W/O PARESHBHAI SHANTILAL MANIYAR
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated
20.11.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.19 of 2011 on the file
of the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, whereby
the sole accused in the case was acquitted of the charges
under Sections 306 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Concise statement of facts pertaining to the prosecution
case may be stated as follows:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
3. Pareshbhai Shantilal Maniyar (herein after referred to as
"the deceased") is the husband of the accused. Their marriage
was solemnized more than seven years ago, prior to the death
of the deceased. They had no issues out of their lawful
wedlock. It is stated that the accused, who is the wife of the
deceased, used to harass the deceased quarreling with him
frequently and beat him unnecessarily and attack him on his
private parts. As they were not in cordial terms with each
other, the accused used to subject the deceased to
harassment in the above manner daily. While so, on 4.11.2010,
it is stated that, the deceased has informed PW-1, who is his
father, that he is fed up with the behaviour of his wife, who is
the accused, as she has been constantly harassing him by
picking up quarrels with him and beating him, and that unable
to bear the said harassment that he is consuming poison. So, it
is stated that the deceased had taken insecticide tablets at
about 8.30 a.m. on that day in the lavatory, and again at 11
a.m. on that day, he has taken the same insecticide tablets in
the house. Thereafter, he had vomitings and when he is being
taken to the hospital, the accused obstructed his family
members from taking him to the hospital and, at that time
also, she quarreled with him. After the deceased was taken to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
the hospital, he was admitted in the hospital. On the
requisition given by the hospital authority, PW-10, who is
learned Executive Magistrate, visited the hospital and recorded
the dying declaration of the deceased. The deceased stated in
his dying declaration that the accused, who is his wife, has
been constantly harassing him by quarreling with him and
beating him frequently and unable to bear the said harassment
that he has consumed the poison. Thereafter, he died on the
same day i.e. 4.11.2010. After holding the inquest over his
dead body, autopsy was held over his dead-body by the
doctor, who is examined as PW-7, and no injuries anywhere on
his body or on his private parts were found. The doctor opined
that he died due to cardio-respiratory arrest due to poisoning
by the compound named alluminium phosphied. Postmortem
certificate was issued to that effect.
4. After his death on 4.11.2010, PW-1, lodged a report with
police against accused on 25.11.2010 with delay of 20 days.
The police registered the said report as a case for the offences
punishable under Sections 306 and 302 of IPC. The case was
investigated. After completion of the investigation, charge-
sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 306 and 302 of IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
5. In the trial Court charge under Section 306 of IPC and
alternative charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed
against the accused. He denied the said charges and claimed
to be tried.
6. In the trial that took place, prosecution got examined PW-
1 to PW-13 witnesses and got marked 24 exhibits to prove its
case against the accused.
7. After completion of the trial, upon considering the
evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial
Court found the accused not guilty either for the charge under
Section 306 or for the charge under Section 302 of IPC and
acquitted him of the said offences by the impugned judgment
of acquittal.
8. Being not satisfied with the said judgment of acquittal,
and aggrieved by it, the State has preferred the present appeal
against the accused questioning the legality and validity of the
impugned judgment of acquittal.
9. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Bhargav Pandya, and
learned counsel, Mr.Yogendra Thakore, for the respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
10. At the outset, we would like to hold that the very framing
of alternative charge under Section 302 of IPC by the trial
Judge based on the facts and circumstances of the case is
wholly misconceived and totally uncalled for. It is really beyond
our comprehension as to how the trial Court framed an
alternative charge for the offence under Section 302 of IPC,
regarding murder of the deceased. It is not at all the case of
the prosecution that the accused administered poison to the
deceased and thereby killed him and committed murder of the
deceased punishable under Section 302 of IPC. In fact, it is
nobody's case that the deceased was murdered by the
accused. Even the postmortem report shows that it is a case of
death due to consumption of poison. So, it is not at all a case
of homicidal death. Therefore, as noticed supra, the very
farming of an alternative charge under Section 302 of IPC is
clearly unsustainable under law. It shows total non-application
of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case by the trial
Judge, who framed the charges. At the time of framing
charges, the trial Court has to consider the facts and
circumstances of the case, the specific allegations ascribed
against the accused and the evidence on record and then the
trial Court has to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
of the case and the allegations ascribed against the accused
and then frame appropriate charge, calling the accused to face
the trial for the said charges levelled against him. We take
serious note of the non-application of mind by the learned trial
Judge to the facts and circumstances of the case, while framing
erroneous charge under Section 302 of IPC, even alternatively
in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Being a
Sessions Judge with sufficient experience, he is expected to
apply his mind to the facts of the case and frame an
appropriate charge for trial of the case. So, while seriously
deprecating the framing of an alternative charge under Section
302 of IPC by the trial Judge, we straightaway hold that
absolutely no case for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is
made out from the facts of the case. The facts of the case do
not constitute any offence under Section 302 of IPC as it is not
at all a case of homicidal death.
11. As regards the offence under Section 306 of IPC is
concerned, it pertains to abetment to commit suicide.
Admittedly, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased
has consumed poison in the form of insecticide tablets and
died. The medical evidence on record bears ample testimony
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
of the said fact. The evidence of the doctor, who conducted
autopsy over the dead-body of the deceased, examined as PW-
1, coupled with the postmortem report issued by him, amply
proves that the deceased died due to consumption of
poisonous substance and that it is a clear case of suicidal
death.
12. Now, the question is whether the deceased voluntarily
committed suicide or whether the accused abetted the
deceased to commit suicide and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC or not. It is settled law
that in order to prove the offence of abetment to commit
suicide punishable under Section 306 of IPC, necessary
ingredients contemplated under Section 107 of IPC relating to
intentional instigation said to have been given by the accused
to the deceased to commit suicide or intentional aid said to
have been given by the accused to the deceased to commit
suicide are to be invariably proved and established by the
prosecution. Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution
that the accused has either intentionally instigated the
deceased to commit suicide or aided him to commit suicide. A
careful consideration of the facts of the case and his own
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
statement given before PW-10, learned Executive Magistrate,
who recorded his last statement in the form of his dying
declaration, the deceased himself has voluntarily said that he
has taken the poisonous substance to put an end to his life.
The reason assigned by him for taking the said poisonous
substance to commit suicide is that he has no cordial terms
with the accused, who is his wife and that the accused used to
frequently quarrel with him and beat him and harass him
constantly and unable to bear the said harassment that he has
taken poisonous substance and committed suicide. Therefore,
if there are any family bickerings and disputes between the
couple and even if there is any harassment by beating the
deceased, and if the deceased, because of his weak nature,
sensitive mind or emotional nature, voluntarily takes an
extreme decision of putting an end to his life, by committing
suicide, it cannot be said under any stretch of reasoning that
he has committed suicide on account of any intentional
instigation or aid given by the accused to commit suicide. As
per the facts of the prosecution case, the accused did not goad
or drive or abet the deceased to commit suicide. It is the
deceased, who has taken decision voluntarily to commit
suicide because of his innocent nature or weak mind, to put an
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
end to his life. So the accused cannot be made liable for the
suicidal death of the deceased. As noticed supra, proof of
prerequisites contemplated under Section 107 of IPC are sine
qua non to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 306 of
IPC. They are conspicuously absent in this case. Therefore, no
case is made out even for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC.
13. The Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and
Another v. Inspector of Police, reported in 2002 Livelaw
(SC) 834, while dealing with the case under Section 306 of
IPC, held that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be proof of direct or indirect act of incitement to
commission of suicide and merely on the allegation of
harassment, without there being any positive action,
proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the
accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable. In
Patel Babubhai Manhardas and Others v. State of
Gujarat reported in 2025 Livelaw (SC) 288 also, recently
the Apex Court, while dealing with the case under Section 306
of IPC, held that mere harassment or blackmail without direct
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
incitement or proximate acts compelling suicide is not
sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 306 of IPC and,
thereby acquitted the appellants therein.
14. Thus, from the conspectus of law enunciated in the
above-cited judgments, legal position is made very clear that
mere act of harassment by itself will not constitute an offence
under Section 306 of IPC, if the deceased has committed
suicide voluntarily because of any such harassment. There
must be proximate nexus between the act of suicide and the
act of instigation or aid said to have been given by the accused
to commit said suicide. Considering this case on the
touchstone of the above discussed law, we have absolutely no
hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to
make out any case for the offence punishable under Section
306 of IPC.
15. After considering the facts of the case and evidence on
record, the trial Court, though framed erroneous charge under
Section 302 of IPC, ultimately arrived at a right conclusion in
recording finding of acquittal in favour of the accused for the
charges levelled against him. We do not find any legal flaw in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/314/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
the impugned judgment of acquittal. Therefore, it calls for no
interference in this appeal. The appeal fails and it is liable to
be dismissed.
16. Ergo, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 20.11.2012 passed in Sessions
Case No.19 of 2011 on the file of learned 7 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Rajkot. Bail bond, if any, of the respondent
shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back
to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
Sd/-
(D. M. VYAS, J)
R.S. MALEK
