Gujarat High Court
State Of Guajarat vs Copalbhai Madhukarbhai Adhav on 11 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2618 of 2008
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2621 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
STATE OF GUAJARAT
Versus
GOPALBHAI MADHUKARBHAI ADHAV
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MATAFER R PANDE(3952) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Both the appeals have been filed by the State aggrieved
and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 27.08.2008
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case
No.158 of 2007, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted
the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 498A of Indian
Penal Code, (for short 'IPC'), for a period of one year simple
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
fine one month imprisonment. While, learned Sessions Judge
acquitted both the accused for the offence under Sections 323,
306 and 114 of IPC, and further accused No.2 - Sumanben
Madhukarbhai Sampatbhai Adhav was also acquitted for the
offence under Section 498A IPC.
2. Criminal Appeal No.2618 of 2008 is filed under Section 377
of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'CrPC) for
enhancement of the sentence. While Criminal Appeal No.2621 of
2008 is filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the CrPC to set aside the
order of acquittal and to convict both the accused for the
offences, as charged.
3. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt referring to the depositions
of all the witnesses, which are 11 in number submitted that
there were evidence on record to conclude the offences under
Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. All the witnesses of the family
members of deceased - Hanshaben Gopalbhai Adhav has
deposed of the harassment by both husband and the mother-in-
law. Even after staying separately, there was harassment from
both the husband and the mother-in-law and though, facts have
been proved, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in
disbelieving the witnesses.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
3.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that in the incident, over
and above Hanshaben, the minor daughter-Janvi aged about one
and half year also died. The said fact, Ms. Bhatt submitted that,
makes it very much obvious on record to consider the
harassment, which was suffered by the deceased. Learned APP
submitted that the complaint proves the continuous mental and
physical torture to the deceased and that learned Sessions
Judge has not appreciated the important vital evidence in right
spirit and has erred in acquitting the accused.
3.2 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt further submitted that the evidence
on record by way of Section 313 of the CrPC has mislead the
Court, while the dying declaration proves the cruelty which the
deceased suffered and therefore, submitted that the punishment
only under Section 498A of IPC is insufficient and the learned
Trial Court was required to see the case of suicide and ought to
have punished the husband and even the mother-in-law so as to
create a deterrent effect since, the cruelty of the husband and
the mother-in-law had led the wife to commit suicide and thus,
there is clear case of abetment to suicide.
4. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Matafer
R.Pande submitted that the evidence on record has been proved
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
that the mother-in-law was not staying along with the accused
No.1 and the deceased Hanshaben. The evidence of the
neighbour (PW6), though has been declared hostile, itself proves
the fact that deceased-Hanshaben and accused Gopalbhai were
staying separately. The allegations against the mother-in-law are
general in nature. There are no specific details of any
harassment and the dying declaration itself proves that deceased
- Hanshaben on her own had committed suicide and there was
not instigation from any of the accused. At the time of
committing suicide, accused No.1 was in the balcony, which has
been stated by the witness, and further in the incident, accused
No.1 while trying to save the deceased, he himself got injured.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Pande submitted that one year
imprisonment is also excessive under Section 498A of IPC since
ingredients of Section 498A has not been proved. Mr. Pande
further submitted that during the trial, he had undergone the
imprisonment, hence, there was set off given to the punishment.
Advocate Mr. Pande submitted that there is no reason for even
challenging the conviction and there would not be any ground
for enhancing the sentence since accused No.1 has already
undergone one year imprisonment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
5. Jail remarks has been placed on record by learned APP Ms.
Bhatt. As per the jail remarks accused - Gopalbhai Madhukar
Adhav (Sakunsali), aged about 52 years had been in jail for one
year four months and 53 days. The jail remarks shows that after
according the set off, he has been released from jail on
27.08.2008 i.e. from the day of the judgment.
6. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on
16.01.2007 at 19.00 hours. The Executive Magistrate,
Rajeshkumar Thakorbhai Desai was examined as PW-7 at
Exh.25. The patient was conscious and such endorsement was
given by the Medical Officer, prior to recording of the dying
declaration. The Executive Magistrate has referred to the
statement given by the injured deceased - Hansaben Gopalbhai
Adhav and when she was asked, she stated that her husband on
the day of ''Uttarayan'' and also day before the incident had
come consuming liquor and therefore, being angry she ablazed
herself by pouring kerosene on her body and had burned herself
with the match stick. She was further asked about her husband,
she stated that her husband was in Balcony. The dying
declaration was in a fit and conscious state of mind. There was
no reason to doubt the recording of dying declaration and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
nothing has been brought in the cross-examination, which could
create any doubt regarding the credential of the dying
declaration.
7. The dying declaration of Hanshaben shows that husband
on ''Uttarayan'' and day before the incident that means
on14.01.2007and 15.01.2007, had come in inebriated state, she
was not happy and getting enraged she burnt herself. Dying
declaration does not refer to any act of mother-in-law. The place
of incident is rented premises. The neighbour PW6 -
Saraswatiben Prakashbhai has been examined at Exh.22. She
has been declared hostile, but deposition shows that the
deceased was staying along with the husband Gopalbhai and
two children. According to her, deceased has not informed her
about any cruelty and cross-examined shows that husband and
wife both were staying happily, there was no quarrel.
8. The postmortem of the deceased minor-Janvi Gopalbhai
Adhav was conducted by PW1 Doctor Prakesh Patel and there
were about 45% burnt and the child died on 04.02.2007.
8.1 PW2 - Doctor Arvind Dasrathsinh deposed at Exh.15, who
conducted the postmortem of deceased Hanshaben Gopalbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Adhav on 21.01.2007. According to his deposition, the patient
was admitted on 15.01.2007 at Smimer Hospital and on
20.01.2007 at about 2.45 in the afternoon, she died.
8.2 PW3 - complainant father, Prabhakar Girdhar Sonwane
had accused the husband and mother-in-law of harassing his
daughter. As per his deposition, initially after the marriage, his
daughter was staying along with husband and mother-in-law .
PW3-complainant stated that for about six months, there was no
dispute and thereafter, both father-in-law and mother-in-law
started harassing the daughter. Whenever, she used to come
during the occasion of Holi and Diwali, the daughter would
inform him about the harassment. The deposition of the sister
(PW8) - Rekhaben Ajay Sonwane would state of the marriage
span of six to seven years. After the matrimonial life, the couple
had two children, one was boy aged about five years and another
was deceased daughter-Janhvi aged about one and half year.
The deceased had also informed to PW8 - sister about the
incident and before her she stated that her husband Gopal since
last three days was consuming liquor and was beating her and
because of that harassment she had burned herself. PW-8 - the
sister also affirms that while the sister got burnt, accused No.1-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
husband Gopalbhai had tried to save her, but he too got burnt
and was admitted in the hospital.
8.3 The complainant father could not specify the type of
harassment by the mother-in-law or the husband. In general
form, he stated that his daughter was asked to bring clothes and
money from her parental house. He stated that the neighbour
had informed him that her mother-in-law was coming there and
harassing the daughter-in-law, however, no such evidence has
come on record. PW-6, the neighbour, has not stated any such
fact. The fact also becomes clear that at the time of the incident,
the mother-in-law was not staying with them. The deceased and
her husband and two children were staying in the rented
property.
8.4 The complainant has put his complaint at Exh.19 in his
evidence, and he, according to the complaint has given the
deposition. The complaint refers to accused No.1 in inebriated
condition beating the daughter Hanshaben on 15.01.2007 and
fed up of that, she burned herself by pouring kerosene. The
complaint and the dying declaration refers only to the conduct of
accused No.1, who on 14.01.2007 and 15.01.2007, had come to
house consuming liquor. The deceased Hanshaben is not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
referring to any beatings from the accused No.1. She has stated
before the Executive magistrate that since her husband on
''Uttarayan'' day and the day after ''Uttarayan'', which is the date
before committing suicide, had come consuming liquor and
therefore, she got angry and burned herself. There is no evidence
of beating on 14.01.2007 or 15.01.2007.
8.5 The mother of the deceased - Niluben Prabhakar Sonwade
has been examined as PW-4, who too has stated that her
daughter has burnt herself, as she was harassed by the husband
and mother-in-law. But the deposition of the PW4 does not get
corroboration from the dying declaration of the deceased herself.
The marriage span is more than 6 years, the sister of deceased
Rekhaben has stated that son Bhavesh was aged about five
years and daughter was aged about one and half years. The
brother Pravinbhai Prabhakar Sonwade was examined as PW5,
who had also referred to the beatings by accused Gopalbhai to
his sister being in an intoxicated state. As observed hereinabove,
dying declaration does not state of any beatings by the accused.
8.6 PW9 is a Panch of the place of offence. The Panch has
proved the Panchnama Exh.30, which is a place, where the
deceased and the husband with the children were staying. PW10
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
is a Assistant in F.S.L., who was asked to draw the sketch of the
place of incident and has given his report at Exh.33 and the
sketch has been produced on record at Exh.34.
8.7 PW11 - Nathubhai Gavjibhai has recorded the complaint at
Limbayat Police Station. The complaint was recorded in the
Station Diary and was produced in evidence at Exh.36. PW12 is
the Police Inspector, who was in-charge of Limbayat Police
Station who had received the 'Wardi' from the hospital, and he
recorded the same in the Station Diary. He stated that the
Station Diary was handed over to B.N. Kashyap. The witness has
produced the 'Wardi' at Exh.38. PW13 is Beniram Matadin
Kashyap, who, as per the 'Wardi' had gone to Smimer Hospital.
The inquest panchnama was drawn and the panchnama, as
stated was recorded as per the panchas. He had noted the
complaint at Exh.19 on 16.01.2007. The Investigating Officer -
Ghanshyamsinh Raghusinh Rao was examined as PW14 at
Exh.40. The contradiction in the statement of neighbour
Saraswatiben (PW6), the neighbour, was brought on record.
However, such statement cannot be made the basis of conviction
and being a neighbour, she has denied of any such statement
before the police of any harassment by the husband to the wife.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
9. The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the case under
Section 306 and 114 of the IPC and also under Section 323 of
IPC. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has not found any case
under Section 498A of IPC against the mother-in-law.
10. In the case of the State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal &
Another in Criminal Appeal No.959 of 2018, while deciding the
leniency, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the High
Court was too lenient in imposing the sentence of six days only
which was the period already undergone by the accused in
confinement. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a
sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and in case
of default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the case of Soman vs.
State of Kerala, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 382 and Alister
Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2012) 2 SCC 648 and has made observations in Paragraphs 10,
11, 12, 13 and 14 as under :-
"10. Currently, India does not have structured sentencing
guidelines that have been issued either by the legislature or
the judiciary. However, the Courts have framed certain
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
guidelines in the matter of imposition of sentence. A Judge
has wide discretion in awarding the sentence within the
statutory limits. Since in many offences only the maximum
punishment is prescribed and for some offences the
minimum punishment is prescribed, each Judge exercises
his discretion accordingly. There cannot, therefore, be any
uniformity. However, this Court has repeatedly held that
the Courts will have to take into account certain principles
while exercising their discretion in sentencing, such as
proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation. In a
proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the
seriousness of an offence in order to determine the
commensurate punishment for the offender. The
seriousness of an offence depends, apart from other things,
also upon its harmfulness.
11. This Court in the case of Soman Vs. State of Kerala
[(2013) 11 SCC 382] observed thus :
"27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on
various different rationales - most prominent
amongst which would be proportionality and
deterrence.
27.2. The question of consequences of criminal
action can be relevant from both a proportionality
and deterrence standpoint
27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the
sentence must be commensurate with the
seriousness or gravity of the offence.
27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging
seriousness of the offence is the consequences
resulting from it.
27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be
properly attributed to the offender if they were
reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of
toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer
but the distributor and the retail vendor would know
its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even though
any harm to the consumer might not be directly
intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if
the consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as
result of consuming the spurious liquor."
12. The same is the verdict of this Court in Alister Anthony
Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 2 SCC 648]
wherein it is observed thus:
"84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of
crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law
is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and
proportionate sentence commensurate with the
nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which
the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for
sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts
have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of
the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction.
What sentence would meet the ends of justice
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case
and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the
crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and
all other attendant circumstances."
13. From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that
the principle governing the imposition of punishment will
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
However, the sentence should be appropriate, adequate,
just, proportionate and commensurate with the nature and
gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is
committed. The gravity of the crime, motive for the crime,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
nature of the crime and all other attending circumstances
have to be borne in mind while imposing the sentence. The
Court cannot afford to be casual while imposing the
sentence, inasmuch as both the crime and the criminal are
equally important in the sentencing process. The Courts
must see that the public does not lose confidence in the
judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences will do
more harm to the justice system and may lead to a state
where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and
resorts to private vengeance.
14. In the matter at hand, it is proved that the victim has
sustained a grievous injury on a vital portion of the body,
i.e. the head, which was fractured. The doctor has opined
that the injury was life threatening. Hence, in our
considered opinion, the High Court was too lenient in
imposing the sentence of six days only which was the
period already undergone by the accused in confinement."
11. The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate
does not note of any continuous harassment by the mother-in-
law or the husband. The deceased as injured refers to the
husband coming on the day of 'Uttarayan' and the next day in
intoxicated state. The deceased has not refereed to any beatings
by the husband. The evidence on record has come on record that
the family as a husband, wife and two children were staying
separately from the mother-in-law. Only a general statement of
harassment without any further details of any cruelty could not
bring the case under Section 498A of IPC against the mother-in-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
law.
12. Section 377 of CrPC is for the enhancement of the
sentence, which permits the accused to plead for his acquittal or
reduction of the sentence. Sub-section (3) of Section 377 reads
as under:-
"(3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on
the ground of its inadequacy, the Court of Session or, as the
case may be, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence
except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against such enhancement and while showing
cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the
reduction of the sentence."
13. The prayer has been made under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. by
filing an appeal enhancing the sentence. The learned Sessions
Judge has convicted the husband as accused No.1 for a period of
one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.
14. In Bed Raj v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1955
(2) SCR 583, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded that
the question of sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well
settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along
accepted judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere to
the detriment of the accused person except for very strong
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
reasons, which must be disclosed on the fact of judgment. It was
further held that in a matter of enhancement, there should not
be interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial
punishment. Here in this case, the accused No.1 has already
suffered imprisonment of one year four months and fifty three
days.
15. Mr. Pande, learned advocate for the accused submitted
that actually, there had been no evidence on record to even
consider the case under Section 498A of IPC against the accused
No.1. However, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the
accused No.1 under Section 498A of IPC considering the
circumstances under which the wife committed suicide. Mr.
Pande has submitted that since the husband was not present at
the time of wife committing suicide and that in fact, he went to
save the wife and during that process, he himself got injured and
was admitted in the hospital, would show that there was no case
of any abetment to suicide and therefore, Mr. Pande submitted
that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the
accused No.1 for the charge under Section 306 of IPC. Advocate
Mr. Pandey has also submitted that there was no case for the
mother-in-law to even being arraigned as an accused and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2618/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
learned Judge has rightly acquitted the mother-in-law from all
the charges.
16. On perusal of the evidence and as discussed hereinabove,
there was no case against the mother-in-law of any continuous
harassment. No specific details have been given by any of the
witnesses to draw a presumption under Section 113A of the
Evidence Act against any of the accused. The sentence, which
has been laid down and passed against the accused No.1 is
consistent with the evidence on record. The State has not shown
any grounds for enhancing the sentence, nor has shown any
evidence on record to entertain the grounds raised for setting
aside the acquittal.
17. In view of the above discussions and observations, both the
appeals stand dismissed. Record & Proceedings be sent back to
the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/1 (Suppl.)
