Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ishvarbhai Pababhai Dharani on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1043 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 199 of 2014
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
ISHVARBHAI PABABHAI DHARANI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH
ROY)
1. These two appeals are preferred against the judgment
dated 24/01/2013 passed by learned 2 nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Khambhaliya in Sessions Case No.22 of 2010 where-
under the respondent nos.1 to 3 herein who are A-1 to A-3 in
the said case were acquitted of the charges punishable under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Sections 498A, 306, 304(B) and 323 read with Section 114 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2. Factual matrix of the prosecution case may be stated as
follows:
2.1. Monghiben (herein after referred to as 'the deceased') is
the legally wedded wife of A-1. A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-
1. Marriage between A-1 and the deceased took place on
13/02/2006. They led conjugal life and one daughter was born
to them during their lawful wedlock. It is the case of the
prosecution that some time after the marriage that both A-1
who is her husband as well as A-2 and A-3 who are her
parents-in-law started harassing her and subjecting her to
cruelty demanding money from her. Unable to bear the said
harassment, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial
house and reside in her parents house for a period of seven to
eight months. It is stated that A-2 and A-3 who are her
parents-in-law demanded Rs.5,000/- as a condition not to
harass her and to allow her to lead conjugal life with her
husband. So, PW-6 who is the brother of the deceased paid
the said sum of Rs.5,000/- and both A-2 and A-3 together
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
collected the said sum of Rs.5,000/- from him. Thereafter, it is
stated that again A-1 demanded Rs.10,000/- and harassed her
and stated that he would take her back with him from the
house of her parents only if the said sum of Rs.10,000/- is
paid. Accordingly, PW-6 who is the brother of the deceased
paid the said sum to A-1 and thereafter A-1 took her to his
house. While both of them were living together, it is stated
that on the evening of 31/12/2009, the deceased called her
brother PW-6 over phone and informed him that the accused
are demanding Rs.50,000/- from her. Thereafter, on the next
day i.e. on 01/01/2010, at about 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon the
deceased committed suicide by hanging with her saree. A-1
who is her husband took her to the hospital where she was
declared dead.
3. On the report lodged by PW-6 who is the brother of the
deceased, police registered a case under Sections 498A, 306,
304(B) and 323 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal
Code against the accused. The case was investigated.
Inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and
thereafter postmortem was held over the dead body of the
deceased. The doctor who conducted an autopsy opined that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
she died due to hanging. After competition of the
investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the
accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. In the trial court, charges under Sections 498A, 306,
304(B) and 323 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
were framed against the accused. They denied the said
charges and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined
PW-1 to PW-10 witnesses and got marked 20 exhibits to prove
its case against the accused.
6. After conclusion of the trial, on consideration of the
evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial
court found the accused not guilty for any of the said charges
levelled against them and acquitted them of the said charges
by the impugned judgment.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal,
present appeals are preferred by both State and the De-facto
Complainant questioning the legality and validity of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
impugned judgment of acquittal.
8. When the appeals came up for hearing, we have heard at
length Ms.Krina Calla, learned APP for the appellant-State
and Mr. Vijay Nagesh for the respondents in Criminal Appeal
No.1043 of 2013 as well as Mr. Anil Mehta appearing for
Mr.Ashish Dagli for the appellant-original complainant,
Mr.Vijay Nagesh for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Ms. Krina
Calla, learned APP for respondent no.4-State in Criminal
Appeal No.199 of 2014.
9. The marital facts of the case are not in controversy.
Admittedly, the deceased is the wife of A-1. Their marriage
was solemnized on 13/02/2006. She died by committing
suicide by handing on 01/01/2010. So, her suicidal death took
place within seven years of her marriage. These facts are
incontrovertible facts in this case.
10. We would first like to consider the charge under Section
304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
11. In order to hold a person is guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, it
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
has to be shown that the deceased who is the wife of A-1 died
due to the burn injuries or under any unnatural circumstances
within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage
and that soon before her death that she was subjected to
harassment for or in connection with a demand made for
dowry. As per the explanation appended to Section 304(B) of
the Indian Penal Code, the term 'dowry' shall have the same
meaning as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
12. Although in the instant case, the suicidal death of the
deceased has taken place within seven years of her marriage,
in order to invoke the presumption under Section 113(B) of
the Evidence Act that it is a case of dowry death, there is no
acceptable legal evidence on record to prove that the
deceased was subjected to any harassment for or in
connection with a demand for dowry as contemplated under
Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from it, there
is no proper evidence on record to prove that soon before her
suicidal death that she was subjected to any such harassment
with any demand for dowry. There must be a proximate nexus
between the acts of harassment said to have been caused to
her with a demand for dowry and her suicidal death. There
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
must be strong evidence or circumstances in proof of the fact
that she was subjected to harassment for or in connection
with dowry soon before her death to establish that proximate
nexus between the alleged acts of the accused pertaining to
the alleged harassment and the suicidal death of the
deceased.
13. In the instant case, it is the specific case of the
prosecution that the deceased committed suicide on the
afternoon of 01/01/2010 and in the evening of the previous
day i.e. 31/12/2009 that she informed her brother PW-6 on
phone that the accused are harassing her with a demand for
money of Rs.50,000/-. So, this demand and the consequent
harassment is shown as the main reason for her suicidal death
on the next day to prove that she was subjected to harassment
soon before her death. But the said material fact is not
proved and established by the prosecution in this case. The
Investigation Officer failed to seize the phones of both the
deceased and her brother PW-6 and also to collect the CDR
relating to the said two phones to prove that there was a
phone call from the deceased to PW-6 in the evening of the
previous day i.e. on 31/12/2009. No explanation is offered for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
non-seizure of the said two cell phones and for non-production
of the CDR with the certificate under Section 64(B)(4) of the
Evidence Act. So, adverse inference is to be drawn under
Section 114(G) of the Evidence Act for withholding the said
material evidence. The inference that could be drawn in the
facts and circumstances of the case is that if the said cell
phones are seized and produced with the CDR details that the
said evidence would be unfavourable to the prosecution and
as such the said evidence was deliberately suppressed. So, as
the said material fact that she was subjected to harassment
with any such demand for money of Rs.50,000/- on 31/12/2009
before her death, it cannot be held or presumed even that she
committed suicide because of any such harassment. So, the
presumption under Section 113(B) cannot be invoked in the
given facts and circumstance of the case.
14. Although PW-6 who is the brother of the deceased stated
in his evidence that earlier about seven to eight months back
that he paid Rs.5,000/- to A-2 who is the father-in-law in the
presence of A-3 who is the mother-in-law as per their demand
and that he paid Rs.10,000/- to A-1 on his demand during the
Diwali days, the said incidents even if true, took place long
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
back prior to her suicidal death. So, these two sporadic
incidents even if true which took place long prior to her
suicidal death cannot be connected to the present incident of
suicidal death to hold that she committed suicide because of
the said incidents.
15. Further, in the instant case, except stating that there
was a demand for the said sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/-
and same was paid, there is nothing to indicate on record that
she was subjected to any physical cruelty by beating her or
subjecting her to any physical harassment. So, by a mere
demand for a paltry amount of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- etc.,
it cannot be held that the alleged harassment even if true is so
severe or grave so as to necessarily drive the deceased to
commit suicide.
16. Therefore, we have not hesitation to hold that the
offence under Section 304(B) is not made out or proved
against the accused in this case.
17. Even as regards the charge under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is not the case where the
accused have directly instigated deliberately or aided the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
deceased to commit suicide to hold them responsible for her
suicidal death by abetting her to commit suicide under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we
are of the considered view that even the presumption under
Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked in the
present case. As noticed supra, although the suicidal death of
the deceased took place within a period of seven years of the
marriage, even to establish the guilt under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code, it must be shown that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty by the accused.
19. The expression 'cruelty' used under Section 113(A) of
the Evidence Act shall be as defined under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code. As per explanation appended to
Clause-(a) of Section 498A, when the accused exhibits a grave
conduct which have the effect of driving the woman to cause
danger to her life or limb or to drive her to commit suicide
then it amounts to subjecting her to cruelty and as per
Clause-(b) when there is harassment relating to demand made
for money, property or valuable security then it amount to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
subjecting her to cruelty.
20. As noticed supra, the demand of Rs.50,000/- is not
proved in this case. As regards the demand of Rs.5,000/- and
Rs.10,000/- long prior to the suicidal death, except the sole
testimony of PW-6 who is the brother of the deceased, we do
not have any other evidence in support of his testimony. The
mother of the deceased who is examined as PW-7 did not say
that any such demand was made to her. Her evidence is only
hear-say. So, in the absence of any supporting evidence
relating to a sporadic events which took place long prior to
the suicidal death of the deceased, it is not safe to place
reliance on the sole testimony of PW-6 to come to any
conclusion that it is because of those demands that she
committed suicide. No such presumption can be invoked
under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act in the given facts
and circumstances of the case.
21. We have already held that there is no allegation or
evidence to prove that there is any physical violence or
harassment to which the deceased was subjected in the hands
of the accused. So, a mere demand of Rs.5,000/- and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Rs.10,000/- even if true, cannot be construed as a conduct of
serious and grave nature to hold it as an act of cruelty which
has driven the deceased to commit suicide because of the said
incidents. In the context, one should not lose right of the fact
relating to normal wear and tear of a family life. Petty
quarrels and family bickerings between a couple cannot be
construed as an act of harassment or cruelty. So, when a
wife, because of petty family disputes or differences, either
because of her sensitive nature or emotional temperament,
takes any extreme decision of putting an end to her life by
committing suicide at the spur of the moment, it cannot be
presumed that she committed suicide because of the
harassment caused to her by the accused as required under
the law. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the
offences under Section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code
are also not proved. There is absolutely no evidence on
record to prove that A-1 to A-3 harassed the deceased.
Therefore, the offence under Section 306 is also not proved.
Similarly there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the
accused beat the deceased. So, the charge under Section 323
is also not proved.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1043/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
22. Upon considering the evidence on record and on proper
appreciation of the same, the trial court arrived at a right
conclusion and recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the
accused. We do not find any manifest error of law in the
impugned judgment of acquittal. It is based on proper
appreciation of the evidence on record. On reappraisal of the
evidence on record, we are also of the same view that the
prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for any
of the charges levelled against them. Therefore, the
impugned judgment is sustainable under law and it calls no
interference in these appeals.
23. Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed confirming the
judgment of the acquittal of the trial court. Bail bond of the
accused, if any, shall stand discharged.
24. Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the
concerned court.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ILA
