Gujarat High Court
Shardaben,Daughter Of Ishwarlal ... vs State Of Gujarat on 15 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2608 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
SHARDABEN,DAUGHTER OF ISHWARLAL BHOGILAL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By the judgment dated 26.12.2005, the Additional
Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa in Sessions Case Nos.30
of 2004 and 69 of 2004, convicted the present three appellants
under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced them for one
year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A
and a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine
further one month simple imprisonment, and for the offence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
under Section 306 of IPC, the appellants were sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo a further
simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The trial under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 114
of IPC was against five accused. Godavariben (A3) - the mother/
mother-in-law and Kailashben (A4) - sister/sister-in-law were
acquitted, while Shardaben (A1), Jasiben (A2) and Kokilaben
(A5), present appellants as sisters and sisters-in-law were
convicted.
2.1 The complainant - Hiralal Naranlal Thakkar, resident of
village Shihori filed FIR before Deodar Police Station on
06.11.2003 for the alleged commission of offence punishable
under section 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of IPC.
2.1.1 Common charge, for the Sessions Case No.30 of 2004 and
on supplementary charge sheet being filed, for Sessions Case
No.69 of 2004, was framed on 09.09.2004 by Additional
Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa.
2.1.2 The charge levelled against them were with the fact that
deceased Prafulkumar and deceased Meenaben had married two
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
years ago and from the beginning of the marriage all the accused
started mentally and physically harassing deceased Meenaben @
Tinaben and therefore, both the deceased started residing in the
rented house of the ownership of Thakkarbhai Kanubhai at
Deodar and there too, by visiting the house, all the accused had
mentally harassed both the deceased and had slapped
Prafulkumar on the road. All the accused had often mentally and
physically harassed both the deceased and therefore, had
committed the offence under section 498A read with section 114
of the IPC.
2.1.3 Further, at the referred place and time, because of the
constant physical and mental cruelty of the accused both the
deceased finding no other alternative committed suicide, on
05.10.2003 at about 11.00 hours by pouring kerosene on their
body, ablazed themselves thus, the accused were charged for
abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with section 114 of
the IPC.
2.2 The complainant is the father of deceased Tinaben @
Meenaben, who married deceased Prafulkumar Ishwarbhai
Thakkar on 09.12.2001, who was the only brother of the present
appellants. It is stated that Tinaben and her husband
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Prafulkumar both committed suicide on 05.10.2003 in the
rented house at 11.00 p.m., and the incident was informed to
the Deodar Police Station on 06.10.2003 at about 1.30 a.m. by
their relative Kishorebhai Thakkar, thereafter Accidental Death
Report No.8/2003 was given under section 174 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). The complainant
and the witnesses were present at the hospital, and though the
Investigating Officer had tried to get the statement recorded,
none got their statement recorded nor registered the FIR.
Thereafter the FIR was registered by the complainant after a
delay of 31 days of alleged incident.
2.3 After completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to
be filed and thereafter a supplementary charge sheet was also
filed and therefore, two Sessions Case Nos.30 of 2004 and 69 of
2004 were registered. After framing of charge below Exh.7 the
prosecution examined 16 witnesses and the defense had also
examined 5 witnesses.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah has submitted
that that the entire case of prosecution is based on the
testimonies of partisan witnesses i.e. father, mother, brother,
sister-in-law and sister of deceased Tinaben, they had no
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
personal knowledge regarding the marriage life of the deceased
Prafulkumar and Tinaben and only on assumption and
presumption vague and general allegations were made.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that on being
informed, a 'Janvajog' entry was made by the police and when
police visited the hospital on the same day, the complainant and
all the witnesses though were present in the hospital, but raised
no grievance against any of the accused. Mr. Shah stated that
thereafter, again on 31.10.2003 the police tried to record the
statement of the complainant, but was in vain, as ground of
mental disturbance on account of incident was put forward and
thereafter FIR was filed after a period of 31 days of the incident.
Advocate Mr. Shah stated that the Investigating Officer Balubhai
Jethabhai (PW5) deposed at Exh.83 that during the course of
investigation, he tried to record statement of the complainant
after recording the Janva Jog entry, but no one had given any
adverse statement against the accused.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that looking to the
entire prosecution evidence, it has come on record that
Prafulkumar had committed suicide on the ground that one of
his sisters had slapped him and as per the prosecution,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
deceased Tinaben had committed suicide since she and
Prafulkumar had to stay separately from the matrimonial house.
3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Shah stated that prima facie, offence
under section 498A is not made out, so far as the commission of
suicide by Prafulkumar is concerned. Mr. Shah stated that
Prafulkumar was the younger brother of the appellants and
therefore only because one of his sisters had slapped the
brother, is not sufficient to attract section 306 of IPC. Mr. Shah
stated that to attract offence under section 498A of IPC, the
ingredients are (i) the woman must be married, (ii) she must be
subjected to cruelty or harassment, (iii) such cruelty and
harassment must have been done either by husband of the
woman or by the relatives of husband, therefore stated that,
prima facie no offence under section 498A of IPC is made out
against the appellants, so far as it is the commission of suicide
by their brother Prafulkumar.
3.4 Learned advocate Mr. Shah stated that prima facie no
offence under section 498A is satisfied for the suicide by
Tinaben, as the prosecution has not proved any cruelty or
harassment having been metted out to her by the appellants. Mr.
Shah submitted that it is an admitted fact and even it is the case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
of the prosecution that all the appellants were living separately
from both the deceased. Mr. Shah stated that from the evidence
of witnesses, it is crystal clear that Tinaben had committed
suicide, as she wanted to stay separately, and there is no
allegation of demand of any dowry nor there is any specific
allegation of harassment or cruelty and therefore in absence of
such evidence, offence under section 498A is not made out.
3.5 Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that prima facie
offence under section 306 of IPC is also not made out against the
appellants for commission of suicide by both the deceased. Mr.
Shah stated that as per the prosecution case, no specific
instance, much less, proximate instance is alleged by which it
can be said that there was no other option for Prafulkumar and
Tinaben but to commit suicide and the allegation made by the
prosecution in the entire evidence is to the effect that one of his
sisters had slapped Prafulkumar, but there is no specific date,
time or reason for giving such slap proved by the prosecution.
3.6 Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that section
306 of IPC penalizes those, who abet the act of suicide and to
charge any person under section section 306 of IPC, the
prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
act of suicide by the deceased, and this involvement must satisfy
the pre-condition outlined in section 107 of IPC. These
conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the
individual to commit suicide, conspiring with other to ensure
that the act was carried out, or engages in conduct that directly
led to the person taking his/her life.
3.7 Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that to attract section 306
IPC, it is well established principle that the presence of clear
mens rea is essential. He submits that merely harassment by
itself is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting
suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate active or direct
action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own
life. Advocate Mr. Shah stated that the element of mens rea
cannot simply be presumed or inferred, it must be evident and
explicitly discernible. Though, it is the foundational requirement
for establishing abetment under the law, it is not satisfied in the
matter. To attract the provisions of section 306 of IPC, it is
necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the
deceased to commit suicide, which requires certain such acts,
omissions, creation of circumstances or words, which would
incite or provoke another person to commit suicide and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
therefore, looking to the evidence of the prosecution, no such
basic ingredients to attract offence under section 306 of IPC is
made out. Thus, Mr. Shah urged that it is a fit case to acquit the
appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and
306 of IPC.
3.8 Relying on the judgment of Geo Varghese vs. The State of
Rajasthan and Anr., [2021] 10 S.C.R. 393, learned advocate Mr.
Shah submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in
the said judgment that there must be allegation of either direct
or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of
suicide and mere allegations of harassment to the deceased by
another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are
allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which
compelled the commission of suicide.
3.9 Learned advocate Mr. Shah further relied on the judgment
of Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat ,
[2024 INSC 960], to submit that for a conviction under Section
306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to commit suicide. Mr. Shah submitted that the
cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves
complex attributes of human behaviour and reactions, requiring
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
the Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused's
role in instigating the act and mere allegations of harassment are
not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that
the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Mr.
Shah stated that such actions must also be proximate to the
time of the suicide, whether the accused's conduct, including
provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim's self-esteem, created
an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended
only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the
threshold for abetment or investigation and each case demands
a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused's intent
and its impact on the victim.
4. Per Contra Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt appearing for
the State submitted that the judgment and order of the Trial
Court convicting the present accused is just and proper and
does not require any interference, as same is appropriately
passed. Ms. Bhatt referring to the evidence of the witnesses
submitted that the conviction of three sisters-in-law is consistent
with the evidence on record. The suicidal death of husband and
wife leaving back an one year child itself would draw the
presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, that a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
married woman was subjected to cruelty, which led her to
commit suicide and abbetors of suicide were the sisters-in-law
and mother-in-law.
4.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that here the husband is
putting suicide note to explain the cause of death. The suicide
note has been proved by the panchas, which had been recovered
by Dy.S.P. Ms. Bhatt, also submitted that the complainant and
the family members were in shock because of death of son-in-
law and daughter and the said fact explains the delay in filing
the FIR. Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that the suicide note
had been proved by the complainant father as well as brother of
deceased Tina as well as the Manager. The cause of suicide had
been proved by the witnesses, which shows continuous
harassment from the accused and they were ultimately staying
separately, there too, they were harassed.
4.2 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt further stated that the witnesses
have given evidence of sisters slapping Prafulkumar on the road,
which had led to the cause for suicide, which is an immediate
act and thus, supporting the judgment submitted that the case
has been proved by the witnesses as per the charge framed and
thus, stated that the appeal is required to be dismissed and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
conviction may be confirmed.
5. Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC are reproduced herein
below for ready reference to appreciate and analyse the facts and
evidences on record:
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.-- Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to
meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.
306. Abetment of suicide.-- If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine."
5.1 Section 498A had been incorporated under Chapter XX(A)
of the IPC with effect from 25.12.1983. The provision was made
to give recourse to the women, who were subjected to cruelty by
husband or by relative of the husband of the woman. Thus, in
view of the provisions so enacted the ingredients of section 498A
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
would not be applicable in the present case against the son. The
explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of cruelty to bring
the case under Section 498A, the woman must be married, she
must be subjected to cruelty or harassment and such cruelty or
harassment must have been either by husband of the woman or
by the relative of her husband. Here, in the present case, both
the husband and wife have committed suicide together on the
very same day.
6. Section 498A explains the cruelty, which has been suffered
by the married woman. While, those considerations for the
definition of cruelty cannot be extended to consider the cause of
the death of son. Section 498A refers to wilful conduct of the
husband or the relatives of the husband of such a nature, which
is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. While sub-clause
(b) under the explanation is about the harassment to the
woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her, to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security, or such harassment would be on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand. In view of the explanation, sub-clause (b) relates
to dowry demand. In the present case, the charge does not state
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
of any dowry demand.
6.1 The Trial Court judge had framed the charge under Section
498A read with Section 114 of IPC, alleging cruelty by the
accused, connecting both the husband and wife i.e. the son and
daughter-in-law. Section 498A would not be attracted for the
son, as the provision is only made for the married woman, who
would be described as daughter-in-law under Section 498A. The
charge, thus, under section 498A read with Section 114 of IPC,
was required to be proved only in connection with the daughter-
in-law.
6.2 Under Section 306 of IPC, the allegation, which requires to
be proved by the prosecution is abetment of suicide. The accused
are to be charged for instigation or abetment for committing
suicide. direct involvement of the accused in such abetment or
instigation is necessary, in case, where deceased committed
suicide.
7. Section 107 IPC defines abetment. In the case of Gangula
Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., [2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (1)], the
concept of abetment has been made clear with reference to
Section 107 of IPC in relation to Section 306 of IPC. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
observed that the act of abetment was mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, it cannot be considered
that the accused had goaded or urged forward to provoke, incite
or encourage the act of commission of suicide.
7.1 In the case of Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., [1995
Suppl. (3) SCC 731], the allegation levelled were as as under:
"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law
(husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me
and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a
second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-
law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to
die by burning."
7.2 The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a
conclusions that the ingredients of abetment are not attracted to
the facts of the case. Conviction under section 306 of IPC merely
on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment to
the deceased is unsustainable in law, and that dying declaration
of the deceased wife alone not sufficient to bring the acts of the
appellants, husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the
deceased within section 306 IPC.
8. In the present case, both the husband and wife committed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
suicide on 05.10.2003 by pouring kerosene and ablazing
themselves. The cause of death of Prafulkumar Ishwarlal
Thakkar and Tinaben wife of Prafulkumar notes extensive burns,
but the exact cause of death was to be known after FSL report by
viscera analysis of FSL Ahmedabad.
8.1 PW1 - Doctor Navinchandra Joytaram Parekh after
referring to the FSL report, stated that there was no
consumption of poison and the death was because of burning.
The external injury of Prafulkumar was 80% to 90% and of
Tinaben 70% to 80% and both dead bodies had first degree
burns.
9. The panchnama of place of incident (Exh.77), where both
committed suicide, was drawn on 06.10.2008 between 9.30 to
11.00 during morning hours. The place was shown by Thakkar
Kishorekumar Chhaganlal in connection with Accidental Death
Report No.8/2003 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Exh.77 notes that
both the deceased were staying at the rented house of the
ownership of Thakkar Kanubhai Manilal. By opening the grill as
well as the door and on entering the first room, they found one
bed in a half burnt condition, which was a wooden 'setty', and
beside that on the floor, there was half burnt quilt and over it
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
were two pillows in a burnt condition. In the room they found
water and sand, which appears to have been used for
extinguishing the fire. The quilt and pillows were wet. Beside the
bed, there were burnt cloths and burnt wooden pieces. There
was excessive stench of kerosene. Beside the bed, there was a
wooden cupboard in the southern wall. The doors of the
cupboard were burnt and it was noted that all the cloths were
also found burnt.
9.1 Beside the cupboard on the same wall, they found iron
grilled window with three doors. The glass of the window was
broken, while the woods were partly burnt. On the eastern side,
they found cupboard for storage, the doors of the same were also
burnt, wherein they found bags and such other articles, which
were found black because of the fire and just beside that, on the
wall, they found a wooden cover containing mattress. The door
also got burnt and the things inside the cupboard, which were
chairs and mattress, were burnt. Near the cupboard, one
wooden cradle (baby cot) was also found burnt. There was a
showcase beside the window with the broken glass, the plywood
was also found burnt and from the drawer of the showcase, they
found one lined note book with the photo of Lord Krishna and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
'Gao Mata' on the hardboard, which had writing ''Fulo Jaisi
Khusboo Char Vuja Sao Behatrin Char Khusbo Sao' in Hindi
and on the first page of the note book with the light blue colour,
in the first line, it was noted in Gujarati 'Ghar Na Trass Thi Jao
Chhu' (Going because of the harassment at house), and in the
last line 'Boleli' (spoken) word was written, and in between, the
cause for death has been written. While rest of the pages were
found blank. It was noted that the first page of the writing and
the hardboard was found dusted with black soot of fire flame.
After that writing, the lower part of the four lines were found
blank. The said book was seized.
9.2 Beside the book from the showcase, they found one big
key of the Bank 'Tijori' in a chain cover, which Kishorebhai
informed that it was the key of treasury of Nagrik Bank. Beside
the key, they found 10 currency note of Rs.100/- denomination,
which were in total Rs.1000/- and there was a red colour Ladies
Purse in the next drawer, wherein there was one note of Rs.50
denomination, one note of Rs.20 and one note of Rs.10, while
there were coins, with the total of Rs.86, and besides that there
was artificial 'Mangalsutra'. Those things were handed over to
Thakkar Kishorebhai.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
9.3 The panchnama shows that almost everything was burnt.
In the first room cable as well as T.V. and one C.D. was found
burnt. The ceiling as well as walls were black. The wings of the
fan on the ceiling were burnt, light fittings were also found
burnt. While in the Kitchen, they found one wick stove, in which
very little kerosene was found.
9.4 Evidence of (PW9) Sharmishtaben @ Lalitaben
Dineshkumar Thakkar, sister of deceased Tinaben was recorded
at Exh.70. The reference of this witness would be relevant, to
note the conduct of both the deceased prior to their death. As
per Sharmishtaben, both the deceased had come at her house at
Thera from Deodar. The evidence is on record that both the
deceased husband and wife were staying in a rented house at
Deodar. As per Sharmishtaben, both the deceased had brought
their son 'Janak' aged about one year at their house and had
asked to keep their child with her till the time they returned
back visiting dispensary. Since both of them did not return till
late, therefore, she phoned her husband at Sihori to enquire
about them. Thereafter, at about 10.33 to 11.00 hours, she came
to know from her father that Prafulkumar and Tina both died by
burning themselves. According to the witness, her sister Tinaben
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
was harassed by the sisters-in-law and mother-in-law and
Prafulkumar too was harassed by his family members.
9.5 In the examination-in-chief she deposed that Tinaben was
staying with father-in-law, mother-in-law and four sisters-in-law
along with her husband. She had no elder brother-in-law or
younger brother-in-law. She also referred about the marriage of
sisters-in-law and had stated that Jassiben was staying along
with her parents. According to her, she has no knowledge at
which village sister-in-law Shardaben (A1) was married. While,
Taraben was married at Palanpur, Kailashben (A4) at Thera
village, Kokilaben (A5) was staying at Deodar separately besides
the house of deceased Tinaben. Jassiben (A2) was staying along
with the parents . It appears that Taraben of Palanpur has not
been arraigned as an accused. PW9 further stated that though
Kailashben was from Thara, she would often reside at her
parents place at Deodar. Shardaben was residing with her
parents. She deposed that all the four sisters and mother-in-law
used to harass and beat deceased Tinaben for minor reasons.
She further stated that Tinaben and her husband used to come
to her house and talk about the cruelty. Witness husband had
gone to Deodar to rebuke them and had told them that, if they
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
do not find conducive, both should be made to stay separate.
She further stated that her father also had reprimanded the
mother-in-law and the sisters-in-law and she further stated that
Shardaben told her that she is the Sarpanch of the village and
she would not allow them to stay.
9.6 The witness further stated that when her father had gone
to reprimand them, at that time, Godavariben (A3) stated that
she needs her daughter and not the son and she would not mind
if the other son would go, since already one has gone.
9.7 PW9-Shardaben thus, in her evidence states that the
deceased was beaten and harassed for minor reasons, her
husband as well as her father had gone to the house to rebuke
the sisters-in-law and the mother. Her husband had asked them
to keep them separate and according to the witness Shardaben
being the Sarpanch of the village had stated that she would not
allow them to stay.
9.8 PW9 - Shardaben has further stated in the deposition that
when Prafulkumar was going to his office, he was slapped in the
Bazar and stated that Prafulkumar was helpless. Deceased
Tinaben had informed her. She stated that after the incident of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
slapping, Prafulkumar and Tina had come along with their son.
9.9 So in view of the deposition, on the same day prior to
committing suicide, deceased had left their one year old son
Janak at the house of this witness, who is sister of deceased
Tinaben. Two facts, which have come in her evidence, would
require a reference for analysis of the evidence of other
witnesses, are the allegations that sisters-in-law and mother-in-
law were harassing Tinaben and that Prafulkumar was given a
slap in the market, while he was going towards his office.
Deceased Prafulkumar was serving in Babar Nagrik Sahakhari
Bank at Deodar as Cashier. In the cross-examination, when the
witness was asked about the visit of both the deceased at her
house, she stated that on the last day they had come to her
house at about 8 O' clock night. She had not enquired from
them as to why they had come from Deodar at that time. She
had not offered tea or water nor they had informed about dinner.
She had not enquired from them as to why they had not gone to
Deodar and had come to Thera. The witness stated that
deceased Prafulkumar had told her that the witness sister i.e.
Tinaben was not well and therefore, they would have to go to a
hospital. He had informed that deceased Tina was having pain in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
her chest and had told her that they would be going to Patel's
dispensary. As they had not returned so she had asked her
husband to enquire at Patel dispensary; her husband informed
that dispensary was closed. The husband of PW9 - Dineshkumar
Thakkar or Doctor or any responsible person of Patel dispensary
have not been examined to fortify the fact of deceased actually
visiting the dispensary.
9.10 In the cross-examination PW9 stated that they had not
enquired whether accused were harassing Prafulkumar prior to
the marriage. She does not have information about the time or
specific date of harassment by the accused to Prafulkumar. She
had not known of any reason of harassment to Prafulkuimar.
She stated that four months prior to the incident both Tinaben
and Prafulkumar had started residing separately from the family.
9.11 The witness stated that after their staying separate, she
and her husband visited Tina's house. She deposed that none of
the accused had said anything about her visiting there. But then
further clarified that since she was visiting Tina, Kokilaben (A5)
had gone to her father to threaten him and at that time, her
brother Ashok was also present there. The further evidence
shows that Kokilaben (A5) had gone to the shop of Ashok at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Deodar village and there too, had threatened Ashok. She clarifies
that the day on which they had left the house of Tinaben after
visiting her, immediately, on that day, Kokilaben (A5) had given
threat, which was to her father. She does not remember as to
what specifically was said in the threat. She further states that it
was told to them that they should not visit the house of Tina,
otherwise they would have to face the consequences. Further
stated that accused were not liking her visiting Tinaben's house.
9.12 In the cross-examination she denied the suggestion, which
was put, that the accused had suspicion that they had made
Prafulkumar and Tinaben to stay separate and for that reason
the accused were asking them not to visit Tinaben's house. She
further stated that the incident of slapping had occurred two to
four days prior to suicide. After such incidence of slapping, she
had never phoned her brother-in-law (deceased). She had
received phone call of Tinaben, who stated that the slap was
given on the road. The witness does not know about the talk
between brother and sister nor the reason to give the slap. She
had denied the suggestion that from the very beginning Tina had
insisted to stay separate with her husband and therefore,
quarrel had began and had also denied the suggestion that
deceased Prafulkumar had informed that he was the only son of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
the aged parents and Jassiben was divorcee staying with them
and therefore, Prafulkumar had denied to get separate and thus,
quarrel began. She denied the suggestion that since Tina had
started quarrels to stay separate, therefore, her father-in-law
Ishwarlal and accused Godavariben had called deceased Tina's
father.
9.13 In the cross-examination, the witness has affirmed that
four months prior to the incident, her father had gone to the
house of the accused and had rebuked them, but denied the
suggestion that at that time, Tinaben had insisted to stay
separate and therefore, her father had asked the father-in-law
and mother-in-law to allow Tinaben and her husband to stay
separately. She affirmed that after her father had visited their
house, Tinaben and Prafulkumar started staying separately, but
denied the suggestion that after staying separately, there were
often quarrels between Tinaben and her husband - Prafulkumar.
9.14 The witness - PW9 was the person, who lastly saw both
the deceased. This fact however, does not get corroborated by
any of the witness. The evidence from Patel dispensary could
have thrown light to corroborate the evidence of both deceased
visiting PW9 at 8 in the evening. The witness has alleged of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
harassment, but has not specified the kind of harassment or
described the harassment meted out to deceased Tinaben as the
daughter-in-law. Though this witness had been in close contact
with deceased Tinaben, and when, both the deceased, husband
and wife, found it fit to hand over their son aged about one year
to her, has not clarified the nature of harassment. What becomes
clear through the evidence is that the father of deceased Tinaben
and husband of PW9 both have reprimanded the accused asking
the accused to make deceased stay separately and four months
prior to the incident of suicide, deceased Tinaben and deceased
Prafulkumar were staying separately.
9.15 The witness does not know the nature of harassment to
Prafulkumar, who was a brother of accused Nos.1 to 4 and 5 and
son to accused No.3 - Godavariben. The only allegation is that
four days prior to the incident, Prafulkumar was slapped in the
market. However, this witness does not name any of the accused
who are alleged to have slapped the brother. However the fact
gets clear that after the visit of the father i.e. the complainant of
the present matter, they were allowed to stay separate. The
further evidence that could be gathered is that the sisters were
not happy with the only brother and sister-in-law staying
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
separately and therefore, in the evidence of this witness, she
states that when her father and husband had scolded accused
mother-in-law and the sisters-in-law, at that time, Shardaben
(A1), who is Sarpanch of the village had stated that she would
not allow them to stay separate. Thus, the whole quarrel, as
could be gathered from the evidence is the father and the
husband of the present witness (P.W.9) insisting the parents of
the deceased Prafulkumar to separate them from the house and
the sisters and mother were not in that favour. The witness has
clearly affirmed that the father, accused sisters, and the accused
mother had consented for the separation, after the visit of her
father - the complainant.
9.16 PW7 - Kishorbhai Thakkar is the cousin i.e. uncle's son of
the deceased Prafulkumar Ishwarlal Thakkar. According to him,
after one year of the marriage, they had started residing
separately and out of the wedlock, they had a son named Janak,
who according to the witness was staying with the complainant -
Haribhai Naranbhai (PW2). The witness does not know the
reason of their committing suicide.
9.17 The witness stated that on 04.10.2003, the grandmother
of the deceased Prafulkumar had died and on 05.10.2003,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Prafulkumar and Tinaben died by ablazing themselves. This
witness, because of the death of the grandmother of the
deceased Prafulkumar, was at the house of the Lalitkumar
Bhogilal at Ogandas Society, where too, he was staying. He had
gone in the prayer meet at night on 05.10.2003 at the house of
Lalitkumar Bhogilal and at about 11 p.m., 2-4 persons had come
to call, who informed the witness that his brother's house got
burned and the doors were closed from inside and therefore, he
and the elders of the family rushed there and saw the doors
closed and the flames of fire on. The neighbours had broken the
window, to douse the fire by pouring water. Witness states that
he saw Tinaben and Prafulkumar got burnt so they were taken
to the Referral Hospital, where the Doctor declared them dead.
9.18 The witness states that the Doctor had informed him to
give Janvajog complaint and therefore, the witness had gone to
Deodar Police Station. He states that the police had written the
complaint and he had signed it. Thereafter, the police had come
to the hospital to undertake the process. The postmortem was
done at the Referral Hospital at Deodar. The family members had
taken the possession of the dead body and in the cremation, all
the members of the Tinaben's house were present. The witness
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
states that in the house of Tinaben, bed, mattress and all other
furniture, fixtures got burnt.
9.19 The witness states that his further statement was
recorded by the police. At that time, he was given 10 notes of
Rs.100/- denomination and a cover with keys of cupboard, one
ladies purse having notes of Rs.50/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.10/- and
few coins in total of Rs.6/-, ladies goggles and an artificial
Mangalsutra, which he accepted and signed the receipt.
According to him, he had also signed the receipt for receiving the
dead body. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that
Shardaben (A1), Kokilaben (A5), Kailashben (A4) are staying
separately since many years from their parents and he affirmed
that in the family, Ishwarlal, Godavariben and the daughter
Jashuben, three were staying together. He also stated that since
the marriage of Prafulkumar, his wife Tinaben had insisted to
stay separate from the family and therefore, there were often
quarrels because of that, and to resolve the dispute, Ishwarbhai
and Godavariben had called father of Tinaben. Harilalbhai had
come and resolving the dispute, when Prafulkumar and Tinaben
had asked of staying separate and on insistence of Harilal -
PW2, they were made to stay separate. He stated that marriage
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
of Kokilaben had taken place at Chalvada Village, but she was
staying at Deodar and stated that Prafulkumar and Tinaben,
after staying separately, they were residing on the upper floor of
Kokilaben's (A5) house and also affirmed that there too they
often quarrelled therefore, Kokilaben had asked them to vacate
the house. Thereafter, both of them started staying in
Kanubhai's house. He also further affirmed that after staying at
Kanubhai's house, the quarrel between Tinaben and
Prafulkumar continued. He states that he was informed by
Prafulkumar about the quarrel as he was talking with him. He
stated that the incident occurred on the day of Dusshera. They
had taken a vow for Garba of Tinaben's son - Janak before the
goddess and that was celebrated. The Garbo was taken out from
Godavariben's house and on the last day of Navratri, the
grandmother of Prafulkumar died. He denied of any harassment
from the accused to both the deceased, and in the last rites, he
stated that Tinaben's father - Harilal and the uncle and others
were all present.
9.20 PW7 - Kishorekumar Thakkar, was the person who was
handed over the currency notes and the keys of the cupboard,
which was of the Bank where deceased Prafulkumar was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
serving. Mark 13/2 shows as seizure memo and on Mark 5/7
identifying his signature as a receipt of receiving the dead
bodies. Both the documents though referred were not exhibited
in evidence.
9.21 It has also come on record that PW7 - Kishorekumar
Thakkar had given a complaint, which is dated 06.10.2003.
Exh.100 was exhibited through the deposition of Police
Inspector, Maheshkumar Babulal Naik (PW16). Though the
Marks 13/2 and 5/7 were referred to Kishorekumar (PW7) for
identifying his signature, Exh.100 at Mark 13/1 was never
shown to PW7 to identify his signature or to affirm that it was
his complaint given to the police.
9.22 Sharmishtaben (PW9) is the witness, who had seen both
the deceased on the very same day, prior to their committing
suicide and PW7 is the person, who had immediately gone at the
house of deceased after their committing suicide. As per
Sharmishtaben (PW9), the immediate cause of suicide was the
slap, which deceased Prafulkumar received in the market, while
going to the office. She, in the evidence has given a general
statement that Tinaben was suffering harassment from sisters-
in-law and mother-in-law and Prafulkumar was also having
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
harassment from his house. In cross-examination, she clarifies
that the incident of slap had occurred two to four days prior to
the date of suicide.
9.23 The evidence of rest of the witnesses would be required to
be evaluated, to examine the fact whether this slap in the market
received by Prafulkumar, while on his way to office, was the
cause of suicide. The fact also becomes clear in the evidence of
Sharmishtaben, that the father of Sharmishtaben and Tinaben
i.e. the complainant was insisting the parents of deceased
Prafulkumar to make them stay separate from their family. For
that purpose, the husband of Sharmishtaben and father of
Sharmishtaben, the complainant, had even rebuked the parents
of Prafulkumar. The evidence also comes in the deposition that
Shardaben (A1) the sister of deceased Prafulkumar was
Sarpanch of the village, had threatened them that she would not
allow them to stay. The context, in which this evidence was
given, was in relation to the complainant father and the husband
of Shardaben, who had scolded the accused to make them
separate, if they would not find themselves comfortable with
both the deceased.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
9.24 The slap is to a younger brother by elder sisters. Whether
slap to a brother could be considered as a direct cause for
suicide. Ordinarily, when siblings are in their growing age, they
often slap and beat each other, they generally do not go in
depression or get offended. Parents do not file criminal complaint
against their children for brothers and sisters fighting and
quarreling when they are raising them. Whether after marriage
the position changes, and becomes a prestige issue, falling on
ego. Whether a slap can be considered as a clear evidence of
direct or indirect act of incitement to commit suicide. The
another cause projected is pain, sustained because of staying
separately.
9.25 The evidence of Kishorebhai (PW7), cousin of deceased
Prafulkumar, reflects the fact that after the marriage of
Prafulkumar, his wife Tina was demanding to get separate from
the family and that there were often quarrels for that purpose,
and to resolve the quarrel, the father of Tinaben was called and
in resolution it was decided that deceased Prafulkumar and
deceased Tinaben would stay separate.
10. Exh.80 is stated to be the report in connection to
complaint of Kishorebhai Chhaganlal Thakkar (PW7). The report
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
was exhibited through the evidence of Chandubhai Jivram
Thakor (PW13). His brief deposition at Exh.79 is in connection
with the Accidental Death Report No.8/2003 under Section 174
of Cr.P.C., which was noted at 1.30 on 06.10.2003. The witness
was examined only to produce Exh.80. There was no cross-
examination from the side of the accused.
10.1 Maheshkumar Babulal Naik (PW16) was the police officer
on 06.10.2003 at Deodar Police Station. He was serving as a
Police Sub-inspector (P.S.I.). He received the Accidental Death
Report No.8/2003 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. of Kishorebhai
(PW7). As per his deposition, since the dead body of Minaben @
Tinaben and Prafulkumakr Ishwarlal Thakkar were at Refral
Hospital, Deodar, he sent a requisition for inquest to Executive
Magistrate, Deodar. In the presence of the Executive Magistrate
inquest panchnama of both the dead bodies were drawn, and
after recording the Postmortem Form, the dead bodies were sent
to panel doctor for P.M. The witness further states, which
becomes relevant, that since the accidental death was of
deceased Minaben @ Tinaben and the marriage span was of two
and half year therefore, message was sent for an investigation by
an officer of the rank of Dy. S.P.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
11. Provisions in Cr.P.C regarding enquiry for death reported
as suicide and investigation for cognizable offence would require
a reference here. Section 174 and section 154 of Cr.P.C makes
distinction laying down procedure to be adopted by the police.
Section 174 of the Cr.P.C reads as under:
"174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.--
(1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some
other police officer specially empowered by the State
Government in that behalf receives information that a
person has committed suicide, or has been killed by
another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident,
or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable
suspicion that some other person has committed an
offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the
nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests,
and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by
the State Government, or by any general or special order of
the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to
the place where the body of such deceased person is, and
there, in the presence of two or more respectable
inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an
investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of
death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and
other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and
stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument
(if any); such marks appear to have been inflicted.
(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and
other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein,
and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate
or the Sub-divisional Magistrate.
(3) When--
(i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven
years of her marriage; or
(ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within
seven years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a
reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an
offence in relation to such woman; or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
(iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within
seven years of her marriage and any relative of the woman
has made a request in this behalf; or
(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or
(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it
expedient so to do,
he shall, subject to such rules as the State
Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body,
with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil
Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this
behalf by the State Government, if the state of the weather
and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without
risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such
examination useless.
(4) The following Magistrates are empowered to hold
inquests, namely, any District Magistrate or Sub-divisional
Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially
empowered in this behalf by the State Government or the
District Magistrate."
12. The object of inquest panchnama is merely to ascertain
whether a person has died under unnatural circumstances or an
unnatural death and if so what is the cause of death. The
question with regard to the details about the death and the
circumstances of the death are not to be examined in the
proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. When in a case, which
involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage,
the body would be forwarded to the nearest civil surgeon with a
view to examination of the body.
12.1 Exh.73 - Inquest Panchnama is addressed to Divisional
Magistrate in connection with the Accidental Death Report
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
No.8/2003, which reflects that the said panchnama was drawn
in presence of two panchas, as were called by the Executive
Magistrate and Police Sub-Inspector. The Inquest Panchnama
was drawn in presence of three panchas at the P.M. Room of
Refral Hospital, Deodar. The panchas in presence of the
Executive Magistrate and Police Sub-Inspector expressed the
opinion that the death was because of burning. The Inquest
Panchnama was drawn on 06.10.2003 between 7.30 to 9.00
hours in the morning.
12.2 Exh.74 is the panchnama drawn on the same day between
16.30 to 16.50 hours. The panchnama is in connection with
Accidental Death Report No.8/2003 in presence of Scientific
Officer R.M. Darji, FSL (Mobile), Banskantha Palanpur, and from
the place of incident three pieces of half burnt clothes were
collected, which had the stench of kerosene. The pieces were of
Sari and all the three pieces had sand stuck on it, the police
seized the same. The panchnama (Exh.74) describes orange
colour polyester sari, while in the said panchnama, there is no
reference of clothes of deceased Prafulkumar.
12.3 As per the deposition of PW16, since the marriage span
was two and a half years and therefore, message was sent for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
investigation by Deputy Superintendent of Police. Exh.77 is the
Panchnama of the place of incident, which was drawn in
connection with the Accidental Death Report No.8/2003 under
Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. The place was shown by PW7 -
Thakkar Kishorkumar Chhaganlal. The Panchnama was drawn
on 06.10.2003 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deodar
between 09.30 to 11.00 hrs., has noted the condition of the
house after the fire and prior to seizing the intact currency
notes, as referred above, seized note book from the show case
with the key of the Nagarik Bank treasury. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police records before the Panchas of seizing
one note book from the show case. The note book on the first
page refers to writing in blue ink in Gujarati language. The first
line recording the word as "ghar na tras thi javu chhu" and the
last line by recording the word "boleli". The Panchnama Exh.77
records that the middle part refers to the cause of death.
12.4 It requires to be mentioned here that PW7 was not shown
the note book or the writing of the first page in the note book,
which is termed as suicide note, though the Panchnama Exh.77
was drawn in his presence. The witness PW7 in the deposition-
in-chief states of his additional statement recorded by the police
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
and also of 10 notes of Rs.100/- denomination and the key with
cover of the cupboard, one ladies purse with the notes of
Rs.50/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.10/- denomination and the coins in
total of Rs.6/- and ladies goggles as well as an artificial
Mangalsutra. The witness was not put to question or referred
about the note book, which was found during the course of
Panchnama Exh.77. Exh.77 does not bear the signature of PW7.
It is not necessary that the person who shows the place of
incident is required to sign the document, but there is no
illegality in taking the signature of such witness who was
present to show the panch and the police the place of incident.
Though the suicide note was noted in the Panchnama Exh.77 on
06.10.2003 between 9.30 to 11.00 hrs. in the morning, no action
was taken in connection with the suicide note, no FIR was
registered on that day.
13. In the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma And Others Vs. State
of Chhattisgarh And Anr. [(2016) 9 SCC 1], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down the distinction between the investigation on
inquiry under Section 174 and investigation under Section 154,
wherein there was a dispute raised that earlier first information
regarding unnatural death amounted to FIR under Section 154
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Cr.P.C. and that there cannot be any second FIR or fresh
investigation of any subsequent information in respect of the
same cognizable offence. It was held as under:
"The proceedings under 174 have a very limited
scope. The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain
whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances
or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause
of the death. The question regarding the details as to how
the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under
what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the
ambit and scope of the proceedings under 174 of CrPC.
Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police
to mention those details in the inquest report. It is,
therefore, not necessary to enter all the details of the overt
acts in the inquest report. The procedure under 174 is for
the purpose of discovering the cause of death, and the
evidence taken was very short. When the body cannot be
found or has been buried, there can be no investigation
under 174. This section is intended to apply to cases in
which an inquest is necessary. The proceedings under this
Section should be kept more distinct from the proceedings
taken on the complaint. Whereas the starting point of the
powers of police was changed from the power of the officer
in charge of a police station to investigate into a cognizable
offence without the order of a Magistrate, to the reduction
of the first information regarding commission of a
cognizable offence, whether received orally or in writing,
into writing. As such, the objective of such placement of
provisions was clear which was to ensure that the recording
of the first information should be the starting point of any
investigation by the police. The purpose of registering FIR is
to set the machinery of criminal investigation into motion,
which culminates with filing of the police report and only
after registration of FIR, beginning of investigation in a
case, collection of evidence during investigation and
formation of the final opinion is the sequence which results
in filing of a report under 173 of the Cr.P.C. It is reiterated,
that the investigating officer is not obliged to investigate at
the stage of inquest, or to ascertain as to who were the
assailants.
13.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that Sections 174
and 175 of Cr.P.C. is a complete code in itself for the purpose of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
"inquiry" in cases of accidental or suspicious death. The
observation is as under:
"In such view of the matter, Sections 174 and 175 of CrPC
afford a complete Code in itself for the purpose of
"Inquiries" in cases of accidental or suspicious deaths and
are entirely distinct from the "investigation" under 157
CrPC, wherein if an officer in-charge of a police station has
reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is
empowered to investigate, he shall proceed in person to the
spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the
case."
13.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court by explaining the difference
between the inquiry under section 154 Cr.P.C. and the inquiry
as contemplated under section 174 Cr.P.C, held as under:
"On a careful scrutiny of materials on record, the
inquiry which was conducted for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the death is natural or unnatural
cannot be categorized under information relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence within the meaning and
import of 154 CrPC. On information received by P.S.
Mulana, the police made an inquiry as contemplated under
174 CrPC. After holding an inquiry, the police submitted its
report before the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambala stating
therein that it was a case of hanging and no cognizable
offence is found to have been committed. In the report, it
was also mentioned that the father of the deceased-R.P.
Sharma (PW-1) does not want to take any further action in
the matter. In view of the above discussion, it clearly goes to
show that what was undertaken by the police was an
inquiry under 174 CrPC which was limited to the extent of
natural or unnatural death and the case was closed.
Whereas, the condition precedent for recording of FIR is
that there must be an information and that information
must disclose a cognizable offence and in the case on hand,
it leaves no matter of doubt that the intimation was an
information of the nature contemplated under 174 CrPC of
the Code and it could not be categorized as information
disclosing a cognizable offence. Also, there is no material to
show that the police after conducting investigation
submitted a report under 173 CrPC as contemplated, before
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
the competent authority, which accepted the said report
and closed the case."
13.3 Therefore, held that the investigation under section 174
Cr.P.C. is distinct from the investigation as contemplated under
Section 154 Cr.P.C. relating to commission of the cognizable
offence and answered the issue raised accordingly:
"In view of the above, the investigation on an inquiry
under under Section 174 CrPC is distinct from the
investigation as contemplated under Section 154 CrPC
relating to commission of a cognizable offence and in the
case on hand there was no FIR registered at the time of
incident, neither any investigation nor any report Section
173 CrPC was submitted. Therefore, challenge to impugned
FIR registered afterwards, could not be assailed on the
ground that it was second FIR in the garb of which
investigation or fresh investigation of the same incident was
initiated."
14. Suicide note came to the knowledge of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police - PW15 - Balubhai Jethabhai Gharchar
on the next day of suicide. He has referred to visiting the place in
connection with the accidental death report and drawing the
Panchnama between 9.30 to 11.00 hrs. in presence of Panchas.
PW15 stated that the evidence, which was received during the
Panchnama was seized and thereafter, statement of the
concerned witnesses were recorded. Very glaring fact which
becomes noticeable is that in spite of having the evidence of
suicide note on 06.10.2003 and recording the statements of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
concerned witnesses, the Deputy Superintendent of Police did
not deem fit to file an FIR after receiving the suicide note and
after exactly one month i.e. 06.11.2003, for the first time, father
of the deceased Tinaben - Harilal Narandas Thakkar (PW2) gave
a complaint alleging physical and mental cruelty to his daughter
and having the reasons for the suicide, the offence under
Sections 498A, 306, 114 of the IPC was registered and the
further investigation was handed over to the Police Sub-
Inspector, Deodar. The correspondence forwarding the
investigation was produced at Exh.82. The witness - Deputy
Superintendent of Police identified Exh.27 as the complaint
before him, which was reduced in writing on a blank paper and
the complainant having signed it in his presence which was also
read over to the complainant. The witness - PW15, Dy. S.P. also
identified Exh.77 as being drawn in his presence. In the
examination-in-chief, PW15 was shown the note Ex.26, which
was seized from the place of offence, wherein he identifies his
signature as well as of two Panchas. Exhs.84 and 85 is an
outward requisition in connection with the accidental death to
the FSL for the examination of the viscera of both the deceased
and Exh.85 is about 3 pieces of clothes described as half-burned
white colour cloth (2) half-burned designed cloth, (3) half-burned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
piece of orange colour polyester saree, all the three pieces had
the smell of kerosene. The witness identifies Exh.86 as the
receipt executed by PW7 - Kishorbhai Chhaganlal Thakkar on
the very same date 06.10.2003 of receiving the articles, as noted
in the Panchnama Exh.77.
14.1 Though Exh.26, the note book was found on 6.10.2003
and was recorded by way of Panchnama Exh.77 and the
prosecution in the chief-examination also showed the note to
PW15, but the said document Exh.26 the suicide note was not
referred to PW7, though it was observed that it was seized during
his presence. The articles which had been returned back to PW7
by way of receipt Exh.86 were subsequently seized by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police in presence of Panchas while prior to
those articles being seen, the note book was already recorded to
have been seized in the Panchnama. In spite of having the
suicide note on 06.10.2003 and even recording the statements of
the concerned witnesses, no FIR under Section 154 of the
Cr.P.C. was filed. Since no complaint was recorded on
06.10.2003 under section 154 of the Cr.P.C., it would have been
possible that no information was received relating to commission
of a cognizable offence. PW15 has stated that he had recorded
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
statements of the concerned witnesses. In spite of that, no FIR
was drawn on 06.10.2003. Exh.77 was in connection with the
inquiry under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. PW15 - Deputy
Superintendent of Police does not state, that after handing over
the currency note and the articles by way of Exh.62 to PW7, he
had handed over the note book Exh.26, to the PSO. Whether the
suicide note Exh.26 remained in the custody of PW15 till the
filing of the FIR on 06.11.2003 for exactly a month is not
clarified by PW15 - Deputy Superintendent of Police.
15. In the case of Jai Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar , [(2012)
4 SCC 379], the Supreme Court held as under:
"12. The FIR in criminal case is a vital and valuable piece
of evidence though may not be substantive piece of
evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of
the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to
obtain early information regarding the circumstances in
which the crime was committed, the names of actual
culprits and the part played by them as well as the names
of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If
there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it looses the advantage
of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of
coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story
as a result of large number of consultations /
deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the
FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant's
version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand
account of what has actually happened, and who was
responsible for the offence in question."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Kumar
Sharma And Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh And Anr. [(2016) 9
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
SCC], has held that delay of lodging FIR often results in
embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. Further
held that on account of delay, FIR not only gets bereft of
advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the
introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story.
17. Exh.26 is the note book, where the cover bearing photo of
Lord Krishna with a calf is an advertisement of Char Bhuja 100
incense sticks. It is almost fifteen lines of the note book on the
first page considered as suicide note. It is stated to be in the
handwriting of the deceased Prafulkumar. The suicide note does
not state of any harassment or cruelty to the deceased Tinaben.
The suicide note also does not refer to alleged slap given to the
deceased Prafulkumar in the market while going towards his
work place. The note says that his mother and sister have
contributed in removing him from the house. The note also says
that he is leaving because of the harassment in the house,
further stating that his mother only prefers his sisters, his
brother has gone and because of odious behaviour of Shardaben
(A1), he has been removed from the house. The writing Exh.26
also makes a mention of some "Joriyo" being the son of the
mother. The writing further gives regards to Chandubhai,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
respect to Harilal (complainant) and remembrance to
Kishorebhai (PW7) and further addressing the mother, it has
been stated that no one would now make a request to the
mother. Further, noting that Jassi (A2) has destroyed his life and
Kokila (A3) has abused.
17.1 Exh.26 - suicide note does not bear the signature of
deceased Prafulkumar. By the evidence on record of PW6 - peon
of Bhabhar Nagarik Sahakari Bank at Deodar and PW10 -
Indukumar Vitthaldas Thakkar, Bank Manager, the evidence of
deceased Prafulkumar serving as a cashier in the Bank was
brought on record. Both these witnesses were called upon to
identify the hand writings of the deceased. PW6 - Peon was
declared hostile. PW6 - Harshadbhai Jayrambhai Thakkar states
that he was peon in the Bank for the last 5 years. The deceased
Prafulkumar was cashier and the Bank Manager is Indukumar
Vitthaldas Thakkar - PW10. He stated that he only knew that it
was an accidental death and has no further knowledge. He was
given to identify Mark 5/9 and Mark 5/10. He stated that he was
not knowing the hand writings therein and that he had also not
given a statement that deceased Tinaben and Prafulkumar had
died by burning. On declaring him hostile, he denied the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
suggestion that at the place of offence, he was shown one note
book by the police with the handwriting of deceased -
Prafulkumar Ishwarlal. He also denied the fact, about the bank
statement dated 13.09.2003 seized by the police during the
course of investigation for identification of handwriting of
deceased Prafulkumar Ishwarlal Thakkar and that the statement
was in carbon copy with the handwriting of the deceased
Prafulkumar and also denied of stating before the police of the
handwriting in the notebook and that in the bank statement
were similar as of deceased Prafulkumar. In the cross-
examination from the side of accused, the witness stated that
the deceased Prafulkumar had never talked of any harassment
from his sisters and mother.
17.2 This PW6 was made to identify the handwriting of the
deceased Prafulkumar, but in the chief examination, he denied
of knowing the handwriting in Mark 5/9 and Mark 5/10. In the
chief examination, he has not been asked about the suicide note
or the note book. The cross-examination denies of comparing the
handwriting in the bank statement and the note book and giving
his opinion of it being generally similar.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
17.3 PW10 - Bank Manager - Indukumar Vitthaldas Acharya
examined at Exh.71 was serving at Deodar during the time of the
incident. His length of service was of 26 years. He stated that at
the time of incident, he was Bank Manager. Deceased
Prafulkumar was working as cashier since 6-7 years. His
working in the Bank was good. He received the information of
the death of Prafulkumar and his wife by burning. The police
had shown him a note. He was made to examine Exh.26 during
the trial. He in his deposition stated that the handwritings were
similarly different and he states that he could identify the
handwriting of Prafulkumar since he was serving under him and
was at that time preparing the loan recovery statements and
those statement he had given to the police. The witness has
referred to Mark 5/10, which he identified as of Prafulkumar.
The original copy he brought during the deposition and after
identifying the statement for the period between 01.04.2002 to
31.03.2003, as the recovery statement dated 13.09.2004, he
identified his signature as a Bank Manager and that of
Prafulkumar and thereafter, on comparing Mark 5/10 with the
original, the carbon copy was placed in evidence at Exh.75. The
witness - Bank Manager was cross-examined. He stated that the
note book which was shown to him was not sealed and it was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
open. Also stated that he had not come to a conclusive opinion
on seeing the handwriting in the note book to be of deceased
Prafulkumar. He found the handwritings different and stated
that he had also informed that the handwritings were different.
Thus, PW6 and PW10 have not stated that the handwritings in
the suicide note Exh.26 were of the deceased Prafulkumar. PW6
denies of police showing him any note book from the place of
offence.
17.4 As per the Panchas, PW11 - Hidaitulla Rasulbai Shiroya
and PW12 - Ashokkumar Jayramdas, Exh.77 was drawn on
06.10.2003 between 9.30 to 11.00 before Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Deodar, Exh.77 records that it was in presence of PW7
- Kishorbhai Chhaganlal Thakkar. The book containing the
suicide note was seized in the presence of Kishorbhai
Chhaganbhai Thakkar, but during the course of trial, he was not
shown to identify Exh.26. He would have been the right person
to identify the handwriting of his cousin deceased Prafulkumar.
Very interestingly, it would be apt to note that the name of PW7
has been referred in the suicide note Exh.26, where the deceased
has given him his regards.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
17.5 P.W7 was not shown his complaint in spite of stating that
he had given a 'Janvajog' complaint before the police, wherein he
had put his signature. Exh.100 is dated 06.10.2003, it does not
note the time, however, the time could be gathered from
document Exh.80, where the Accidental Death Report under
Section 174 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the time of recording the
information is shown as 06.10.2003 at 1.30 hours, while the
time of incident is noted as 05.10.03 at 23.00 hours. The note
below Exh.80 expresses that it was forwarded to Police Station
Officer, Deodar after registering the complaint at 1.30 along with
the papers with the requisition to accept the same. Exh.80 does
not disclose of suicide note being forwarded in the documents.
The suicide note (Exh.26) was recovered through the panchnama
of place of incident (Exh.77) on 06.10.2003 between 9.30 to
11.00 hours. Since there is no document on record of Exh.26
forwarded to P.S.O., it could be inferred that the said document
Exh.26, as a suicide note lied with the Dy. S.P. Deodar (PW15).
17.6 Though suicide note was recovered between 9.30 to 11.00
hours on 06.10.2003, no FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. was
filed for the cognizable offence. For the investigation towards
Exh.80 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. no final report was filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Section 175 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Police Officers
proceedings under Section 174 in connection to the inquiry
summon any person for the purpose of said investigation and
any other person, who appears to be acquainted with the facts of
the case and every person so summon shall be bound to attain
and answer thoroughly all questions other than questions, the
answers to which have a tendency to expose him to criminal
charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. Sub-section (2) of Section
175 clarifies that if the facts do not disclose a cognizable offence,
to which Section 170 applies, such person shall not be required
by the police officer to attain a Magistrate's Court.
17.7 PW13 had recorded the report at Exh.80 of Accidental
Death under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and PW16 - Maheshkumar
Babulal Naik, was handed over the Accidental Death Report
No.8/2003 for investigation, he does not clarify about filing any
report in connection with the inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
on summoning any person in that regard. PW16 does not state
of the panchnama drawn by Dy. S.P. (PW15). He refers to
'Muddamal Pawati' forwarded to Executive Magistrate, Deodar
and refers to the panchnama (Exh.74), which is about three
pieces of the polyester sari seized by him on 06.10.2003 between
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
16.30 to 16.50, but there is no mention of Exh.77 drawn on
06.10.2003 between 9.30 to 11.00 hours.
17.8 The deposition of Police Inspector Maheshkumar Babulal
Naik (PW16) without any context directly refers to the complaint
dated 06.11.2003 before S.D.P.O. Deodar given by Harilal
Narandas (PW2). The Police Inspector (PW16) states that after
receiving the complaint it was sent to P.S.O. for registration
under section 157 Cr.P.C. and he had started the investigation of
the offence, wherein the investigation documents in connection
to Accidental Death Report No.8/2003 with the statements of the
connecting persons were included and according to him, as he
found sufficient evidence, he arrested accused Shardaben
Ishwarlal Thakkar and Jasiben Ishwarlal Thakkar and sent them
to Court custody. Further, he says that he received the Forensic
Science Laboratory report with regard to the clothes found from
the place of incident in connection with Accidental Death Report
No.8/2003,which he called for and thereafter, on his transfer the
further investigation was handed over to PSI Shri R.G. Vaghela.
17.9 PW16 is silent about the suicide note, he is not reporting
about any document he received in the form of Exh.77, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
panchnama, nor he has stated about the bank report of the Loan
Recovery Statement by deceased Prafulkumar. The F.S.L. report
of the burnt clothes were sent by 'Rawangi Note' at Exh.85 by
Dy. S.P. Deodar. That report was called for from the F.S.L. by
PW16. The deposition further states that the further
investigation was handed over to P.S.I. Shri R.G. Vaghela, but
that Police Sub-Inspector has not been examined by the
prosecution. PW16 identified the documents Exh.77, 82, 80, 88,
73, 74, 89, 90, 91, 92 and 93, bearing his signature and those
documents, which were sent to him or which were in his
presence.
17.10 He identified Exh.18 and 19 as P.M. report. Exh.84 and
85, the Rawangi note, which he states was in his signature and
Dy. S.P. In whole of his deposition, the witness is not making
mention of Exh.26 and Exh.77, though, Exh.84 and 85 was
signed by him and Dy. S.P., which shows that the investigation
done by Dy. S.P. was within the knowledge of PW16, inspite of
that PW16 keeps silence about Exh.26 suicide note and Exh.77
the panchnama showing the presence of suicide note in the
house. PW16, would have certainly known about the action
taken by Dy. S.P., as he in his deposition stated that since the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
marriage span was of two and half year, the message was sent
by him for an investigation by an officer in the rank of Dy. S.P.
17.11 Mark 5/10 was placed in evidence at Exh. 75 by the Bank
Manager, the statement bears the signature of the Branch
Manager for the Bhabhar Vibhag Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Deodar Branch. The statement is about the recovery of the loan
amount which is dated 13.09.2003 for the period from
01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003. The date of suicide is 05.10.2003.
17.12 This Court has examined Exh. 26-the suicide note and
Exh. 75-the Bank statement in the hand writing of the deceased,
the carbon copy which was compared with the original and put
on record at Exh. 75. The hand writing in Exh. 75 are in regular
course of his work, and those natural handwriting does not find
similarity with the writing at Exh.26. The Bank Manager who
was accustomed to the writing of the deceased had not approved
of Exh.26 being in the handwriting of the deceased-Prafulkumar.
The custody of Exh. 26, from the date 06.10.2003 till 06.11.2003
is not explained by PW16-Police Sub Inspector, Deodar nor by
PW15-Dy. SP, Deodar. PW11-panch witness had deposed that
the showcase was burnt and the police had seized the Diary from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
that showcase. PW11 further stated that the key of the cupboard
of the Bank and the currency note with the coins and the lady's
purse were handed over in his presence to PW7-Kishorekumar.
He also further states in the cross-examination that the note
book was removed by the Police and PW7-Kishorekumar, while
no such fact is deposed by Kishorebhai himself. While the
deposition of Kishorebhai in the examination-in-chief clarifies
that police had recorded his further statement and at that time
he was handed over the currency notes, key of the bank
cupboard, ladies purse. PW11, Panch, clarifies that all furniture
and showcase were totally burnt. PW11 could not locate the
direction of the wall where from the showcase, the notebook was
removed and further clarifies that no part of the note book was
burnt, while it had remains of carbon on it which he describes as
soot deposits on the book. Perusal of Exh.26 shows that such
black soot of flames deposits are only on the first page and
overleaf the cover of book, while no such fire soot could be seen
on the cover which has the photo of Lord Krishna, nor on other
pages, while slight mark of black carbon could be seen on the
last page of the book and on the opposite side of the cover which
is of the advertisement of Charbhuja Fragrance Company for
different coloured incense boxes.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
17.13 Further, the Dy.S.P. though had sent all the articles for
FSL report, had not sent Exh.26 for hand writing expert Report.
17.14 From the evidence of PW9-Sharmishtaben and PW7-
Kishorekumar, it can be said that the dispute was regarding
both the deceased staying away from the family. PW9-
Sharmishtaben in her deposition clearly affirms that after her
father-PW2 had visited the house of the accused, Tinaben and
Prafulkumar were permitted to stay separately by the father of
Prafulkumar. Here the father of Prafulkumar has not been made
an accused. The evidence of PW9-Sharmishtaben states that it
was her father-PW2 and her husband Dineshkumar who both
had gone to the house of accused and insisted both the deceased
be made to stay separate. Four months prior to the incident, her
father had gone to the house of the accused. Another reason for
suicide, which PW9-Sharmishtaben states was the slap given by
sisters to Prafulkumar in the market, while he was going to his
place of service, Though, Sharmishtaben was closed to Tinaben,
has not named the accused who had slapped deceased-
Prafulkumar. According to her, the incident of slap had occurred
two to four days prior the incident of suicide. There is a general
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
statement by PW9-Sharmishtaben that the deceased Tinaben
was harassed by the sisters-in-law and mother-in-law, at the
same time, had stated that the deceased were having
harassment from the house. What kind of harassment was there
had not been explained, nor any incident of harassment or the
date and place of incident has been described. PW9 stated that
Tina was harassed for minor reasons and stated that her sisters-
in-law and mother-in-law were harassing her and beating her,
but no such fact is reflected in the suicide note-Exh. 26. There is
no mention of harassment meted out to the deceased, Tinaben
nor there is any mention of the slap received by the deceased,
two-three days prior to the suicide.
17.15 Exh.26, if is to be believed then the issue was with regard
to staying separate. As per the suicide note, the deceased
Prafulkumar was not willing to stay separate. While the
deposition of PW9- Sharmishtaben shows that it was the
complainant and her PW9 husband insisted that Prafulkumar
and Tina should stay separate and thereafter, father of
Prafulkumar permitted them to stay separately, while accused
were against it.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
18. In the case of State Of Kerala And Ors. Vs S.Unnikrishnan
Nair And Ors. [2015 (9) SCC 639], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
referring to the case of Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal
[(2005) 2 SCC 659] observed that, the two Judge Bench while
dealing with the concept of abetment under Section 107 of I.P.C.
and, especially, in the context of suicide note, held as under :
"In the suicide note, except referring to the name of
the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act
or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have
committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided
or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in
committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the
appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy,
which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of
suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.
18.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.
Unnikrishnan (supra), in Para-18, held as under:
"Coming to the case at hand, as we have stated
earlier, the suicide note really does not state about any
continuous conduct of harassment and, in any case, the
facts and circumstances are quite different. In such a
situation, we are disposed to think that the High Court is
justified in quashing the proceeding, for it is an accepted
position in law that where no prima facie case is made out
against the accused, then the High Court is obliged in law
to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
and quash the proceedings."
18.2 Here in the instant case too, there is no reference of any
act or instance in the suicide note, whereby the appellant were
alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
intentionally aided or instigated deceased to commit the act of
suicide. The suicide note states nothing in the context to
deceased Tinaben. Sisters were against Prafulkumar leaving the
house, which also becomes clear from the evidence of the
witnesses. While suicide note refers to Shardaben (A1)
responsible for separating them. There is no reference of
continuous harassment to Tinaben in fact there is no reference
of Tinaben in the suicide note. There is no mention of slap in the
suicide note or deceased going in depression because of the slap.
18.3 In the case of Ude Singh v. State of Haryana , [(2019) 17
SCC 301], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to
the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that
the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the
context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of
human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be
looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of
suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the person
to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be
proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has
abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not,
could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of
each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration
would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of
the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court
in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If
the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive
and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to
commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused
guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the
accused by his acts and by his continuous course of
conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased
perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the
case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If
the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-
esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually
draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be
held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea
on the part of the accused in such cases would be
examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the
accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature
where the accused intended nothing more than harassment
or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of
the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused
kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or
deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a
particular case may be that of abetment of suicide..."
18.4 In the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal ,
[(1994) 1 SCC 73], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned in
Para-17 as under:
"17. ... The Court should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the
evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding
whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact
induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it
transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide
was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
differences in domestic life quite common to the society to
which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and
differences were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society to commit
suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied
for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting
the offence of suicide should be found guilty...."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
18.5 In the case of M. Mohan v. State Represented by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, [AIR 2011 SC 1238 : (2011) 3
SCC 626], the Hon'ble Apex Court has made the following
observations regarding the ingredients of Section 306 IPC,
referring to the word 'suicide', which reads thus:
"If the provisions for the offence under Section 306
are considered, it is evident that the basic ingredient
regarding the intentional instigation are required to be
proved or established. The word 'suicide' has not been
defined. The word 'suicide' would mean the intentional
killing of oneself. As per Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th
Edition, p.686, "A finding of suicide must be on evidence of
intention. Every act of self destruction is, in common
language described by the word 'suicide' provided it is an
intentional act of a party knowing the probable
consequence of what he is about. Suicide is never to be
presumed. Intention is the essential legal ingredient."
18.6 In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and
another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the essence of abetment lies in instigating a
person to do a thing or the intentional doing of that thing by an
act or illegal omission. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual
words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. A word uttered
in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
18.7 In the case of Jagdishraj Khatta Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh [(2019) 9 SCC 248], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
dealing with the facts held that, the appellant, a Forest Range
Officer, was residing with the deceased (his wife) and two minor
children. On 07.01.1990, within seven years of the deceased's
marriage with the appellant, the deceased used appellant's gun
to kill herself and after the funeral ceremonies, on 08.01.1990 at
around 11 p.m., the deceased's cousin lodged FIR against the
appellant, alleging that the appellant drove the deceased to
commit suicide, as he continuously subjected deceased to
cruelty, harassment, physical violence and even mistreated her
and insulted her. On 13.01.1990, father of the deceased
produced a letter, supporting the FIR, allegedly written to him by
the deceased.
18.8 The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the
allegations were not only extremely general in nature, but also
the same were never raised by the family of the deceased when
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
they were present at the time of preparation of the inquest report
and that the FIR was filed almost 1½ days after the incident and
the prosecution had not examined any neighbour of appellant
and deceased to substantiate the allegation. Further held that
letter allegedly written by deceased not proved to have been
written by deceased and surrounded by suspicious
circumstances, while handwriting expert testified that writing in
letter was the same as that of certain notebooks, no independent
proof led regarding the writing in aforesaid notebooks and the
said letter was handed over to police after three days of its
receipt, casting serious doubt on authenticity of letter.
18.9 As referred herein above on the analysis of the deposition
of witness the authenticity of suicide note Exh.26 becomes
doubtful.
18.10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P.
Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao [2008 (15) SCC 582], has held that
not every kind of harassment would amount to 'cruelty' within
the meaning of provision to constitute the offence punishable
therein. Every case has to be analysed on its individual facts to
assess whether the act of the accused persons constitutes
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
cruelty. Further, cruelty can either be mental or physical, and it
is to be seen on the facts of each case.
18.11 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Chheena
Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, [2010 (12) SCC 190] in regard to the
abetment has held as under:
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the
legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court
is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306
IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.
It also requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act
must have been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he committed suicide."
19. There is a delay of about one month in filing the complaint.
The legal custody of Exh.26 for this period of one month could
not be brought on record. PW16 - PSI has not stated of receiving
Exh.26 or Exh.77.
19.1 The complainant - Harilal Naranlal Thakkar as PW2 was
examined at Exh.23 and according to his deposition, they are
five brothers, his elder three brothers are staying at Deodar. He
had two daughters. The eldest is Lalita @ Sharmishta - PW9 and
the younger one deceased Tinaben. He also refers to two sons
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
and the elder Ashokkumar staying at Deodar and the younger
one Prakash residing along with him. He states that the
deceased Prafulkumar was serving as a cashier in Bhabhar
Vibhagiya Nagarik Sahakari Bank and two years prior, his
daughter Tinaben had married Prafulkumar and since then, she
was staying with her in-laws. The witness states that the
deceased Tinaben has no elder brother-in-law or younger
brother-in-law, while had five sisters-in-law. The eldest is
Shardaben who was married at Vadhiyar and according to his
deposition, since 20 to 25 years, she is staying as divorcee.
19.2 His further evidence states that his daughter Tinaben and
her husband were earlier staying in joint family and later, they
started residing in the house of Kanubhai Manilal Thakkar at
Deodar. Another sister-in-law - Kokilaben was married at Village
Chalvada and was residing in her own house at Village Deodar
near the house of deceased Tinaben in the same street. The third
sister-in-law was married in Village Thara and another sister-in-
law - Tara is staying at Palanpur and the youngest Jasiben was
married at Baldora Village, but since 3 to 4 years, is a divorcee.
As per the deposition, all the sisters-in-law were staying with the
parents.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
19.3 The complainant's evidence is that after 2 or 3 visits of
Tinaben at his house after the marriage, they started harassing
deceased Tinaben and if at all, husband of deceased Tinaben
would reprimand them on behalf of his wife, then, they would
harass him too. According to the complainant, his daughter had
not talked to him about harassment, but the complainant's wife
had informed him. So according to the complainant, he does not
have first hand knowledge of harassment, which he could say of
having heard from his own daughter.
19.4 The complainant further states that for this purpose, he,
his wife and his son and his brother - Jaswantlal had gone to
reprimand once or twice the father and mother of his son-in-law.
The complainant states that Shardaben (A1) was the Sarpanch
of the Village, who had told him that she would see who would
be giving them the house and she will also see how they would
stay separately.
19.5 This deposition of the complainant itself clarifies that the
dispute was regarding their demand to let the daughter and son-
in-law stay separate. Shardaben (A1) had resisted . This very
evidence of the complainant clarifies that the complainant and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
his family members wanted deceased to be separate, which fact
gets corroborated from the evidence of his own daughter - PW9 -
Sharmishthaben and even from the evidence of PW7 -
Kishorekumar, the cousin of the deceased Prafulkumar.
19.6 Further, the complainant stated that Prafulkumar's father
had permitted Prafulkumar to stay separate, while the mother-
in-law - Godavariben said that one of her son had died and she
would not care if another would die. Godavariben further stated
that she does not want sons, but only daughters. The witness
stated that the elder brother - Mahendrakumar of his son-in-law
had died, who was running a Pan Stall. The evidence of the
complainant further states that four months prior, his son-in-
law - Prafulkumar had met him, who while crying told him that
his four sisters and old lady were harassing them and were not
permitting them to live. Therefore, complainant met deceased
Prafulkumar's father to rebuke them and according to the
complainant, all the accused were present there, at that time,
the father of the deceased - Prafulkumar stated that he would
permit them to stay separately, the complainant adds that others
were speaking negatively. According to the complainant, two
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
months prior to the incident, his son-in-law and the daughter
had started staying in the house of Kanubhai.
Analysis of evidence shows that it was the complainant,
who had forced the accused to allow deceased to leave the joint
family. The allegation does not relate to the accused and more
specifically Shardaben (A1) whose name finds mention in Exh.26
suicide note. The evidence on record is contrary to the contents
in the suicide note. The delay in filing FIR and the conduct of
complainant itself creates doubt on the credibility of suicide
note.
20. In the case of Geo Varghese (supra) relied upon by learned
advocate Mr. Shah, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
abetment of suicide by anybody is also an offence under Section
306 IPC. Though, the IPC does not define the word 'Suicide' but
the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is 'self-killing'. The
word is derived from a modern latin word 'suicidium', 'sui' means
'oneself' and 'cidium' means 'killing'. Thus, the word suicide
implies an act of 'self-killing'. Thus, the word suicide implies an
act of 'self-killing'. In other words, act of death must be
committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the means
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself. Section
306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and
prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under
Section 107 of IPC. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word
'instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do
something.
20.1 In Geo Varghese (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
further held that, what is required to constitute an alleged
abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an
allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the
commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of
harassment of the deceased by another person would not be
sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions
on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of
suicide. Further held that, if the person committing suicide is
hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is
otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated
person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would
be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
Thus, observed that what is required is an examination of every
case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may
have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche
of the deceased.
21. The evidence of Sharmisthaben (PW9) and evidence of
Kishorekumar Thakkar (PW7), if read together with evidence of
complainant (PW2) Harilal Thakkar, then it becomes obvious
that it was the complainant and the husband of Sharmisthaben,
who had insisted the accused and the father of deceased
Prafulkumar to separate them. The utterance by mother
Godavariben, who has been acquitted by the Trial Court Judge is
her pain, as a mother to see her only remaining son getting
separate with the daughter-in-law. Neither Sharmisthaben, nor
the complainant father could describe any harassment that
could be termed as cruelty by the accused to both the deceased.
Mere general allegation that the accused were harassing them
from the beginning of the marriage life, would not be a sufficient
evidence to consider the case under Section 498A IPC. What
kind of harassment deceased Tinaben faced could not be
explained by her sister-PW9 nor the father-PW2. Every kind of
harassment would not amount to cruelty within the meaning of
provision to constitute the offence punishable therein. It is not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
the case of harassment for any money or other valuables. So
there was no demand of dowry in the present case, nor is there
any such charge framed. Father, PW2 had no knowledge about
any harassment. Deceased Tinaben had not informed the father
about any harassment from the sisters-in-law and mother-in-
law.
21.1 Here the Trial Court Judge had acquitted accused No.3-
Godavariben, the mother of deceased Prafulkumar and the
mother-in-law of deceased Tinaben. The Trial Court had also
acquitted accused No.4 - Kailashben, sister of deceased
Prafulkumar and sister-in-law - Tinaben. The Trial Court Judge
convicted accused Nos.1, 2 and 5, sister-in-law/sisters,
Sharadaben, Jassiben, and Kokilaben.
21.2 The learned Trial Court Judge's observation becomes
significant to mention, bearing the judgment in mind, the
learned Judge referring to deceased Prafulkumar, as the only
son of Godavariben and the only brother for the sisters, made an
assumption that there would have been some cause for both the
deceased to leave the aged parents. The Trial Court Judge
referring to only brother to the sisters, considered that without
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
any reason in general circumstances they would not have
preferred to stay separate, in spite of that they were leaving
separately, and therefore the learned Judge assumed that it
could not be denied of dispute, discord and pain, connecting the
fact that deceased Tinaben, two hours prior to committing
suicide, had left her one year minor son Janak with his aunt
Sharmisthaben. The learned Trial Court Judge assumed that if
there was no such dispute, discord or objection, and that
deceased Prafulkumar had doubts regarding the fidelity of the
wife, and if evidence of PW7-Kishorbhai is to be believed that
both husband and wife were continuously quarreling and
thereafter they had preferred to commit suicide, then they would
not have chosen to keep minor Janak at the house of
Sharmisthaben, sister of Tinaben, and would have decided to
give the child to the parents and sister. The Trial Court Judge on
assumption of quarrel and discord observed that the son and the
daughter-in-law were forced to stay separately. The defence case
of Prafulkumar doubting Tinaben's fidelity, giving birth to
premature child and for that reason doubting the paternity of
the child, considering the child as not his own, and under that
circumstances, leaving the parents and sisters would not have
been the right action. The learned Judge assumed that in such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
circumstances, Prafulkumar rather would have removed his wife
from the family and deserted her, instead of both committing
suicide by burning themselves. Considering this fact, the learned
Judge concluded that there was no dispute, discord and conflict
between the couples.
21.3 The Trial Court Judge has further observed that the
engagement and marriage between the couples were with their
own will and consent, the learned Judge therefore, presumed
that there would have been possibility of both the deceased
meeting each other prior to marriage and therefore, Tinaben
could have conceived and on that possibility, the learned Judge
did not find anything adverse for marital discord, assuming that
child being born healthy, within seven months of marriage, the
couples as a parent must have been knowing this fact, thus the
Trial Court Judge disbelieved the defence that because of
Prafulkumar doubting the fidelity of the wife, had deemed fit to
stay separately , observing that even after staying separate, both
were staying together, if that had been the reason for leaving the
house, then the husband would have deserted the wife, which
has not occurred in the present case. The Trial Court Judge has
also taken judicial note, that seven months old child could be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
born mature and that the defence witness Doctor Nitaben in her
deposition has not stated that it was a premature child, and
from the evidence of the Doctor too, the plea of Prafulkumar
doubting Tinaben could not be believed.The learned Judge found
it to be a contrary case and did not believe the defence raised.
The assumption made by Trial Court Judge was required to be
placed on the basis of the evidence on record. The trial cannot be
conducted and concluded on assumption. If the trials are to be
concluded only on the basis of assumption, then there would not
be any necessity of adducing evidence during the trial. Every
case has to be examined on the basis of evidence, on the facts
and circumstances pleaded.
21.4 The learned Judge could have also assumed that since
Tinaben was the only sister-in-law and when she had the
responsibility of parents-in-law and five sisters-in-law, she would
have found it difficult to stay in the family and thereby must
have insisted to stay separate. The Trial Court Judge, was not
willing to believe the evidence of PW7-Kishorebhai, noting that
the circumstances and facts do not support the testimony of
PW7. The Trial Court got carried away assuming the facts under
which Prafulkumar and Tinaben had started to stay separate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
and had severe their ties with the accused, and gave much
weightage to the fact that the marriage span was only of 2½ to
3 years and within that period, leaving their one year old child
and committing suicide by burning themselves.
21.5 The evidence of witnesses as of father, the complainant
(PW2) and the sister-PW9 brings on record that the father of
Tinaben and husband of PW9 had rather forced the father of
Prafulkumar to make them separate from the family. Within two
months of staying separate, according to the evidence of
complainant, both committed suicide. Would it not be possible
that both the husband and wife were bearing guilt of staying
separate, facing the brunt of social duty of only son looking after
the aged parents. They could not have the courage to face the
society and as per the evidence of the complainant within two
months of staying separate, the couple committed suicide. But
such assumption has no place in the criminal trial. Suspicion
must be based on credible material and not by arbitrary
conclusion.
22. To bring conviction under section 306 IPC, it is necessary
to establish a clear mens rea to initiate or push the deceased to
commit suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, creation
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
of circumstances, words, which would incite or provoke another
person to commit suicide. What becomes instigation is explained
in the judgment of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
[2001 (9) SCC 618] .
22.1 In Ramesh Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that, where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of
conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option but to commit suicide, an "instigation" may
be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused
abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be
established that -
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by
words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a
willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the
deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to
make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward
direction, and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or
encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the
manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the
necessary concomitant of instigation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
22.2 The three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramesh Kumar (Supra) had an occasion to deal with a case of
similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the
appellant husband uttered "you are free to do whatever you wish
and go wherever you like." The Court in para-20 has examined
different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para-20 of the
said judgment reads as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that
actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to
incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.
The present one is not a case where the accused had by his
acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was left with
no other option except to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit
of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
23. The glaring and significant fact in the present matter is
that the complainant father had not deemed fit to file police
complaint immediately after the incident of suicide. Had the
father known about the suicide note (Exh.26) on the very same
day of suicide or day after the suicide, what prevented him to
give the complaint immediately to the police. Further, if the
evidence had to be believed of the complainant of harassment to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
the daughter by all the accused, then the complainant had all
the reason to file the police complaint immediately after the
incident against the accused.
23.1 Here, in this case the complainant took exactly one month
in filing the complaint. The incident had taken place on
06.10.2003 and the complaint has been given on 06.11.2003
after 31 days. PW15 - Dy.S.P. Garchar, had received the
complaint of witness PW2. PW15 - Dy. S.P. registered the
complaint under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of IPC and
forwarded the complaint for investigation to P.S.I. Deodar.
P.W.15 identified the complaint Exh.27, which is affirmed by
him to be on plain paper and PW15 stated that it was reduced in
writing, as dictated by the complainant. Exh.27 shows that it
was in S.D.P.O. Office Deodar. On the top of the complaint, the
time of starting the recording of complaint is noted as 22.30
hours, meaning thereby on 06.02.2003 during the night at
10.30, the complaint was recorded and it ended at 23.30 hours
i.e. 11.30 p.m. The conduct of PW15 becomes very much
doubtful, as though by way of Exh.77, he himself had drawn the
panchnama in presence of panchas and according to him on
06.10.2003, the book in which the suicide note was written, was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
recovered in presence of panch. In spite of that fact, nothing is
on record that Exh.26, the book was deposited before the P.S.O.
The Accidental Death complaint was given by P.W.7, and PW15
was having the knowledge of said complaint and though the
suicide note was recovered on 06.10.2003, PW15 himself has not
filed an FIR. The complaint (Exh.27) was recorded in S.D.P.O.
office Deodar during night hours. The delay of one month in
giving the complaint has not been satisfactorily explained by the
complainant. The pain and shock because of loss of the daughter
and son-in-law would have been there to the complainant and
complainant in his cross-examination stated that he was not in
fit state of mind to give the complaint and therefore, there was a
delay. But other witnesses were brother, sister, mother, of
deceased Tina ,and daughter-in-law of the complainant, none of
them had come forward to file a complaint. The brother of the
deceased Tinaben (P.W.5) could have given the complaint
immediately, if the cause which, as alleged was the reason of
suicide, and with the suicide note stated to be recovered, there
was no reason for the father or the brother of deceased Tinaben
to delay the registration of the complaint.
23.2 In the cross-examination of the sister of deceased Tinaben,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
PW9-Sharmisthaben, the defence has tried to put a suggestion
in the evidence, that the accused had asked her not to visit the
house of deceased as the accused were suspecting them of
separating Prafulkumar and Tinaben from them. The
prosecution has relied on the suicide note (Exh.26), whereby as
per the prosecution the deceased Prafulkumar has alleged
against Shardaben (A1) that she wanted deceased Prafulkumar
to remove himself from the house and was actually removed
from the house. Exh.26 does not bear the signature of deceased
Prafulkumar. The Bank Manager - PW11, Indukumar Acharya,
has not supported Exh.26 in the handwriting of deceased
Prafulkumar. The evidence of PW7 - Kishorekumar notes that
Shardaben (A1), Kokilaben (A5) and Kailashben (A4) were staying
separately from their parents since years and the family
consisted of Ishwarlal, Godvariben and daughter Jassiben. PW7
stated that accordingly they were three staying together. His
evidence is that from the very beginning deceased Tinaben
wanted to stay separate from the family and she has demanded
so and often there were quarrel between the husband and wife
for that reason, and he has also affirmed that to resolve the
dispute, the father of Tinaben was called and accepting the say
of the complainant Harilal, father of Prafulkumar had permitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
to stay separately.
23.3 According to PW7 after that decision deceased
Prafulkumar and Tinaben were staying separately in the upper
floor of the house of Kokilaben (A5). There also because of
quarrel between the couple, Kokilaben asked to vacate the house
and thereafter they started to stay in the house of Kanubhai.
According to the complainant's father, two months prior to the
incident both the deceased were staying separately in the house
of Kanubhai. The evidence of PW9 - sister of deceased Tinaben
clarifies that it was only after her father and husband scolded
the accused and insisted them to stay separate, the father of
deceased Prafulkumar i.e. Ishwarlal permitted them to stay
separately. The allegation in Exh.26 suicide note is that A/1
wanted to remove deceased Prafulkumar from house. A/1 was
the Sarpanch of the village at that time.
23.4 If the evidence of complainant is examined minutely, then
the facts of the case would suggest that accused No.1-Shardaben
was against their leaving the house. She in fact, raised her voice
as a Sarpanch stating that she being a Sarpanch, she would see
that none would give house to them. This expression is her
concern to the insistence of the complainant to make the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
daughter and son-in-law separate from the family. Even the
expression of the mother - Godvariben with pain is that she had
lost one son and now would also live without another son and
that she would be satisfied with daughters. This expression has
come on record by way of evidence of the witnesses. Such
expression would rather show their pain of the only son leaving
the house and only brother leaving the parents.
23.5 In the cross-examination of the complainant it has come
on record that another son of Godvariben named Mahendra had
died a natural death, however, the complainant has denied the
same. According to the complainant, Mahendra had died three
years ago and he had inter-caste marriage, and according to him
he had consumed poison and denied the death because of
Jaundice. The mother - Godvariben and the sister have already
lost a brother and now it was the concern about the only brother
Prafulkumar and the insistent of the family members of
deceased Tinaben to separate them from the family.
23.6 The prominent cause for the suicide, as has been shown
by the complainant as well as other witnesses, was that four to
five days prior to the suicide, Shardaben (A1) and Kokilaben (A5)
had slapped son-in-law on the road. The road is in the market
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
area. None of the independent witnesses from the market had
been examined. Shardaben was a known figure in the area, as
she was a Sarpanch of the village, there would not be any
difficulty of identification of Shardaben, but no witness has been
examined for that purpose. The complainant has projected that
because of the slap, his daughter and son-in-law, both were
under depression and were helpless, however, such fact is not
getting disclosed in the suicide note (Exh.26). Had deceased
Prafulbhai suffered pain by the alleged slap by Shardaben and
Kokilaben, then he would certainly have written so in the suicide
note. PW9 - Sharmisthaben, though states of deceased
Prafulkumar receiving slap from the sister on the road, but she
had not named the sister and she stated that she had not
received such information from the deceased brother-in law,
while it was Tina who had informed her. PW9 had no information
as to what talk took place between brother and sister and why
he was slapped. Sharmisthaben was very closed to deceased
Tina, since Tinaben had found fit to handover the custody of her
son Janak to Sharmisthaben. It could not be believed that
Tinaben would not have named, the sister of Prafulkumar, who
allegedly slapped him on the road. The incident of slap, as per
PW9 had occurred four to five days prior to the suicide.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
23.7 The fact that the son-in-law - Prafulkumar and daughter
Tinaben were depressed and living in a helpless condition does
not get reflected in the suicide note Exh.26, while in the cross
examination of the complainant, when they had asked the son-
in-law and daughter to stay separately from the parents, all the
five had resisted and refused and it was the father of the son-in-
law who had given his consent and thereafter, they started
leaving separately.
23.8 PW4 is the daughter-in-law of the complainant, the wife of
Prakashkumar Thakkar - PW4 Nipaben, according to her, the
cause of death was two slaps and the pain of going in a rented
house. The fact of receiving slap from the sister is not stated by
the deceased Prafulkumar in his alleged suicide note Exh.26.
However, Exh.26 refers to the pain of staying separately and the
whole allegation of making deceased Prafulkumar go out of the
house has been laid down on Shardaben (A1) who is a Sarpanch
of the village. The evidence of the complainant and PW9 - sister
of Tinaben, rather is the contrary, it was the complainant
himself and the husband of Sharmishthaben - PW9 who wanted
the son-in-law and the daughter to stay separately from her
family.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
23.9 The delay of one month in giving the complaint on
06.11.2003, and not on the very day 06.10.2003, becomes very
suspicious if examined from the evidence, which has come in the
cross-examination of the complainant.
23.10 The complainant received the phone call on 05.10.2003
at about 10 O'Clock from PW9 - Sharmishthaben that both the
deceased had left the son at her house and has not returned
back. The complainant was informed that Prafulkumar and
Tinaben wanted to visit dispensary. He asked his son - PW12 to
make inquiry and at about 11 to 11.30, PW12 informed him of
Prafulkumar and Tinaben committing suicide by burning
themselves pouring kerosene. The complainant and his youngest
son both started on their scooter from Sihori to Deodar. They
saw dead body of his daughter and son-in-law being taken to
the hospital. He had seen the body of both of them totally burnt.
In the hospital at that time, the complainant's brother -
Jashwant, his daughter-in-law, all had come there . After the
postmortem in the morning in presence of the community people
at Deodar, the last rites were conducted. So, the complainant
had the information about the suicide at 11 to 11.30. He had
seen the dead body at 12 night on 05.10.2003.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
23.11 Further clarifying, he stated that the police had inquired
from him. Police had come for statement, but he had not given
any statement. Police had informed him that they had received a
diary and therefore, the police asked him that now since they
have received the diary, if at all, he wanted to say the remaining,
he could give the statement accordingly. The complainant
witness stated that at that time, he told the police that he is not
knowing any of the other things. According to the complainant
witness, because of the incident, his mind was disturbed and
regaining fitness of mind after one month, he had given the
police complaint. The evidence of the complainant would further
reflect that till that time, he had not even permitted and allowed
his son or any family members to give complaint. His cross-
examination further reflects that there is a police station at
Sihori and even in Thera village. The police had met him in the
morning of the incident and had asked him to come the next
day. At night of the incident, he had gone to Deodar police
station. It was about 12.30 to 1.00 at night and along with him,
were 2 and 3 his brothers. He had gone on his own and there, he
met a Constable and had informed about the complaint. He
waited there for about half an hour. According to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
complainant, police had informed him that they had already
received a complaint and that there cannot be two complaints for
one matter. On the next day morning, the police talked with him.
At that time, the police had informed him about the complaint
and the police told him that they were knowing about the fact
and if at all he has any new information the police asked him to
give. Here, it would be necessary to note that the complainant is
referring to Exh.100. The accidental death complaint which was
given by PW7 - Kishorekumar. Exh.100 does not refer to any
cruelty or harassment or the cause of suicide or any information
with regard to sisters slapping the brother. The fact in Exh.100
was clear that the marriage span was of two and a half to three
years and out of marriage, there is one year son. The complaint
Exh.100 was under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. for the police to
inquire and report on suicide. The police certainly have
knowledge of the difference between the complaint under
Sections 154 and 174 of Cr.P.C. Since Exh.100 narrated that the
marriage span was two and a half years, PW16 had sent a
message to the higher authority to make investigation through
the officer to the rank of Dy.S.P.
23.12 In spite of police informing the complainant about
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
receiving the suicide note, the complainant sat tight on the
alleged note. His evidence in the cross extermination shows that
from the date of incident, till the time he gave the complaint, he
often had occasion to visit Deodar Police Station. Thereafter, in
the cross-examination, the complainant makes the improvement
stating that during this period, he and the police had no talks
with regard to Exh.26 note book. According to him, he had the
information about such note and he clarifies that the Panchas
had informed him of receiving the note book and such
information was given to him by the Panchas on the third day of
the incident, but he states that after receiving such information
of the note book, he had never asked from the police to see the
same. He states that prior to giving the complaint, he had often
gone to the police asking the arrest of the offenders. The conduct
of this witness as a father cannot be considered as natural.
23.13 It has come in para-19 of his cross-examination that
after the incident, he was immediately fit to give the complaint.
The police had shown him the declaration of the information and
he affirms that the declaration had no particulars of any
harassment to his daughter and there was no particulars of
committing suicide because of the accused. He states that after
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
seeing the report, he had immediately informed the police that
there was nothing in the complaint and that he had asked the
police to take his complaint at about 12.30 night, but his
complaint was not taken by the police. The complainant witness
states that the police had informed him that there cannot be two
complaints for one incident. At that time, he felt that the police
was not taking his complaint and for that purpose, he felt that
he should make a complaint against the police. In cross-
examination at para-20, he further clarifies that before
6.11.2003, he had not given any application to any of the
department, nor had he contacted any superior officer
complaining against the police for not registering his complaint.
According to him, the police was assuring him and the day on
which he gave the complaint, he felt that he should do so. He
denied the suggestion that he never felt to give the complaint
prior to his complaint. He affirmed that after giving his
complaint, he has made applications to various departments and
prior to his complaint on 06.11.2003 he has not taken his family
members to police station and he further clarified that prior to
his complaint, when police has visited his house, he had not
allowed police to take statements of any of his family members.
He further clarifies that till the time he had given the complaint,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
neither his brother nor his son had given any police statement or
complaint. It was only after 06.11.2003, after his complaint, that
the statement of his wife and other witnesses were recorded. He
denied the suggestion that on 20.10.2003, the police had
recorded his statement with regard to the incident.
23.14 The whole conduct of the complainant becomes doubtful.
A father who complains of harassment meted out to the
daughter, did not consider to give a police complaint in spite of
knowing the presence of the suicide note. PW15 - Dy.S.P., who
was investigating, has also not recorded any complaint of the
father in spite of the fact that the father was visiting the police
station often after 6.10.2003.
23.15 In the cross-examination, facts has also come on record
that the complainant is a person, who has acquaintance with the
police station and has knowledge of the proceedings before the
police. He affirmed about the complaint, which was filed against
him by Vahaji Danaji under Sections 323, 324, 325 and 114 of
IPC. His son PW5 - Ashokkumar Harilal Thakkar stated that
there was a complaint against his uncle - Jaswantlal under
Atrocity Act and PW5 was a witness to the matter.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
23.16 PW5, the son of the complainant, had tried to give
evidence in the chief-examination of identifying Mark 5/9 and
Mark 5/10. Mark 5/10 is identified by Bank Manager (PW10) as
a Bank Statement of recovery of loan, which was introduced in
evidence by the Bank Manager at Exh.75. While Mark 5/9 is the
notebook, which contains the suicide note Exh.26. The son of
the complainant PW5 has stated it to be in the handwriting of
deceased Prafulbhai, identifying, he stated that he would
recognize the handwriting of his brother-in-law since they were
studying together. The said fact was not believed by the Trial
Court Judge. Even the complainant had tried to bring in some
fact of his son-in-law preparing their accounts book, but in the
deposition he stated that he cannot produce any such
documents, which would show that his son-in-law was writing
accounts of their shop.
23.17 PW5, the son of the complainant, supporting his father
stating that during that one month period, police had never
shown them the writing Exh.26. And even he denies the
suggestion that on 07.11.2003, when the police has recorded his
statement at that time too, police has not referred to any writing.
He denied the suggestion that his sister-Tinaben never wanted to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
stay in joint family and she was quarreling, for that purpose,
while son-in-law Prafulbhai being single son had always refused
to stay separately, and denied the suggestion that even after
staying separate, both were quarreling again to enter the joint
family. This witness-PW5, the brother, stated that his sister was
not in good terms with the sisters-in-law and that they were
harassing her. Her sister was informing him about the same.
PW5 has merely stated of sisters-in-law harassing his sister, but
has not described or given particulars of harassment caused to
her. What was the harassment or what type of cruelty was
suffered by the sister, PW5 fails to explain.
23.18 PW5 has further stated that after his brother-in-law
started staying separately, he was given two slaps, but the
deposition does not note the name of the accused, who slapped
the brother. The PW5 being the brother also sat quite for about
one month and had not given complaint of any harassment,
cruelty or instigation for suicide against any of the accused. He
had no knowledge about the suicide note (Exh.26) till his father
gave the complaint on 06.11.2003. According to PW5, his sister
and brother-in-law died by burning themselves because of
physical and mental harassment. PW5 the brother, has not given
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
any details of harassment.
23.19 In the cross-examination of the complainant,
photographs of the family from Mark 29/17 to Mark 29/49 were
admitted by the complainant and therefore, were put in evidence
at Exh.30 to 60. The photographs had the company of all the
accused. Another photographs, where all the accused and
daughter Tina along with one year child Janak are in the
photograph, are stated by the witness that it were taken during
the marriage ceremony of son - Shailesh of Shardaben (A1),
which shows the presence of daughter Tina and child Janak. All
the other photographs also show the family members including
the accused and the deceased with the child. The defence had
tried to bring the photographs on record with an intent that, had
deceased Tinaben any grievance against accused, then she
would not have attended the marriage of Shailesh, who is the
son of Shardaben (A1). Even in the evidence of the complainant
has come on record that at the time of engagement ceremony of
the deceased Tina, accused had given two and half Tola gold
neckless, one pair of earring, two gold finger wrings, a pair of
silver Ankle chain and a Juda sari and cutlery items. There was
no case of any dowry demand. However, PW3 - Champaben, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
mother of the deceased had tried to bring on record such
evidence stating that the accused were beating her and were
questioning her, as to what she had brought in dowry. This
allegation is not corroborated by the complainant, nor PW4 or
PW5 nor PW8 or even the sister PW9-Sharmisthaben. The
evidence of mother Champaben (PW3) further says that
Shardaben (A1) was displeased with the fact of their son-in-law
and daughter getting separate and Shardaben had stated that
she would see, who would give him house to live. According to
Champaben-PW3, two or four days prior to the incident, when
his son-in-law was on road for his job in the Bank, A/1 and A/5
Shardaben and Kokilaben had slapped her son-in-law and
therefore, her son-in-law got depressed, who felt that his dignity
got lowered. According to the witness, after they started staying
separately, her son-in-law told her that their daughter is
suffering harassment and that he now cannot bear more.
According to the witness mother, they were harassing the
daughter by rebuking her for domestic work as well as for not
bringing dowry from his father. This deposition does not find
corroboration from the other witnesses' deposition. The dowry
demand evidence is not corroborated by the complainant father,
nor the brother or the sister or the daughter-in-law of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
complainant. It appears that different stories have been brought
during the trial. Even the learned Trial Court Judge has
observed about the demeanor of the complainant. The Trial
Court Judge in Para-27 on page No.9 of the deposition while
asking question, recorded that the complainant witness was
continuously adding new things and even at the time of dictation
the witness complainant was instructed by the Court to
maintain silence. Nothing is brought on record that after the
deceased started staying separately any of the accused were
visiting deceased in the rented house belonging to Kanubhai
Manilal Thakkar.
23.20 In the cross-examination some facts have also been
brought on record by accused No.1 contesting election and a
family member of the complainant named Vasantiben, contesting
against (A1) for the post of Sarpanch. It has come on record that
Shardaben (A1) after the divorce was staying with two grown up
son, one of them got married, whose photographs have been
referred herein before. Vasantiben was wife of Dineshkumar and
Dineshkumar's paternal aunt daughter is complainant's real
aunt.
23.21 The cross-examination of the complainant would also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
show that the incident was of the night of Dashera and the
complainant had deposed that he has no information that
Godvariben (A3), the mother of Prafulbhai, had offered 'Garbo' on
the previous Navratri for Tinaben's first son and according to the
evidence on the 9th day of the Navratri, the mother-in-law of A/5
i.e. the Grandmother of Prafulkumar died during Navratri and
had affirmed that he had gone to Sidhpur for cremation.
23.22 PW8-Minaben is the another daughter-in-law of the
complainant and wife of Ashok Thakkar (PW5), who is only
referring in her deposition that Tinaben's sisters-in-law and
mother-in-law were taunting her. She stated that Tina used to
inform her all the things that were occurring in her house and
because of the quarrel they had started staying in the rented
house. According to her, even after residing in the rented house
the quarrel was not having quietus. She further stated that when
she visited Tina at the rented house, the sisters-in-law were not
liking it and both the sisters-in-law, Jassiben (A2) and
Shardaben (A1) had informed PW8 not to visit Tinaben's house,
thereafter, Tinaben talked on phone. According to the witness
PW8 Kokilaben, Shardaben had slapped Prafulkumar, the son-
in-law and after that incident, he remained sad and was in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
mental tension. According, to the witness such slap was given in
the Bank, while PW6, who was the Peon in the Bank and PW10-
Bank Manager, have not stated of any such incident of sisters
Kokilaben and Sardaben slapping Prafulkumar in the bank.
There is no evidence of the Bank Manager that deceased
Prafulkumar was in depression or was not performing his work
competently during the last days prior to suicide. According to
the Bank Manager, the work of Prafulkumar was good and he
got the information about the death of Prafulkumar on the next
day. PW6, the Peon, had been declared hostile. He was knowing
Prafulkumar as a cashier in the Bank. He has not stated that the
deceased was in depression. In fact, in the cross-examination he
has clarified that deceased Prafulkumar has not informed of any
harassment from his sisters and mother. PW8 has changed the
place of incident. According to her slap was given in the Bank.
24. The defence examined Doctor Chinubhai Amrutlal Shah as
DW1 at Exh.104, Doctor Mita Harishbhai as DW2 at Exh.107
and Dr. Vandana Minol Amin as DW3 at Exh.115 and
Govindbhai Jagabhai Desai DW4 at Exh.118.
24.1 DW1 - Dr. Shah was examined to prove Exh.105 and
Exh.106, which was about child named Radheshyam, who was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
only of four days examined on 25.07.2002, who was prescribed
vitamins. The Doctor has identified Exh.105 and Exh.106 of his
Sonal Children Hospital. On Exh.106, the name in the column
was written as baby Radhyshayam, who was brought for
treatment and after general check up, he was given the
medicines. The witness stated that the child was healthy and
was not having pain.
24.2 DW2-Dr. Mita referring to the file stated that Minaben
Harilal Thakkar was the name on the case papers and the
patient was admitted on 21.07.2002 and discharged on
25.07.2002. The patient was admitted for delivery and the
delivery was on 21.07.2002 by cesarean giving birth to a baby
boy. The case papers have the medicine bills at Exh.109 to
Exh.112, the person who had brought the patient was recorded
as Harilal Naranlal Thakkar. The evidence thus shows that it
was the father who had brought the daughter in the hospital,
and the name on the file was recorded as Minaben of Sihori. The
child was born on 21.07.2002. The name does not reflect as
Tinaben and further the name also was not noted with the
husband's name. The file should have recorded the name as
Minaben Prafulkumar Thakkar. It was the case of delivery of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
child. Perusal of Exh.110, Exh.113, Exh.114 shows the name of
the patient as Minaben Harilal Thakkar. The defence has put up
a case that the husband and wife had dispute with regard to the
child, since the child was born within seven months of the
marriage. The defence has tried to bring on record that the child
Janak was premature, who was born on 21.07.2002, when the
marriage as per the deposition of the complainant referring to
the marriage invitation card (Kankotri), had taken place on
09.12.2001. The evidence does not suggest that the child was
premature child. Dr. Chinubhai Shah DW1 had examined the
child on the fourth day of birth and he found the child healthy.
The question would arise as to why the name of deceased was
not recorded as Tina Prafulkumar Thakkar, when she had gone
for delivery, while in Modi Hospital, the patient's name was
written as Minaben Harilal Thakkar, joining her name with the
father.
24.3 Thereafter, DW3-Dr. Vandana Amin was examined at
Exh.115 and she had examined deceased as Minaben
Prafulkumar Thakkar on 14.04.2003 and as per Dr. Vandana's
deposition, she was having 9 months old child, who had come at
Miti Nursing Home for insertion of CopperT into the uterus. Dr.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
had also written prescription for pain, witness produced
evidence at Exh.116 and Exh.117. As per the evidence of Dr.
Amin, Minaben and the child, both were healthy.
24.4 DW4 is the witness, who was an A.S.I. at the time of
deposition, who stated that on 27.07.1995, he was at Deodar
Police Station as P.S.O. at that time, Vajibhai Vanaji Thakor
resident of Sardarpura had given a complain, witness produced
the complaint at Exh.119 and according to him the complaint
was against (1) Harilal Narandas Thakkar (2) Ashok Harilal
Thakkar and (3) Champaben Thakkar. The accused in the
complaint are the present PW2, PW5 and PW3 i.e. the father,
brother and mother of deceased Tinaben. The complaint was
under Section 323, 324, 325 and 114 of IPC and 135 of B.P. Act.
The allegation against them was of injuring the complainant's
son with sickle on the head, with baton on shoulder and other
blows on head and other parts of the body. The complainant
PW2 in his cross-examination has admitted of such a complaint
and has also stated that Shaileshkumar Bhagwandas, the son of
his brother-in-law of his brother had given a complaint against
his brother Jaswant and Thakkarsinhbhai. He has also admitted
that after the present incident they had given a complaint to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
remove Shardaben (A1) from the post of Sarpanch.
24.5 The evidence on record clearly proves that the
complainant was well aware of the process before the police. The
cause shown for delay in filing the complaint of being in shock
because of the death of daughter and son-in-law is washed of by
the complainant himself by his evidence. In the cross-
examination, he admits in Para-16 that on the next day of
incident he had talked with the police between 10.00 to 11.00 in
the morning and thereafter, everyday he visited the police station
and the police has informed him that investigation was in
progress. He has admitted that he had never informed the police
that he was under shock because of death of his daughter, and
had not informed the police that he would not be in a position to
give the complaint and would give his complaint after being fit.
He has also admitted in the same paragraph that after the
incident till the filing of the complaint, he had visited Deodar
Police Station many a times and according to him during this
period, police had not talked with him about Exh.26 notebook,
nor had he asked from the police to see it. Even in Para-19 of the
cross-examination, he has stated that after the incident he was
fit to give the complaint and that police had shown him the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
declaration of death. He also admitted that in the declaration
there was no reference of any harassment to his daughter nor
any details regarding the cause of death.
24.6 He denied the suggestion that Exh.26- Chit was got up
and also denied that the said chit was got up by him and police.
He denied the suggestion that the chit does not bear the
handwriting of deceased Prafulbhai. The witness also had stated
that his son-in-law would some times write accounts of his shop.
He was asked to produce bill or any handwriting of his son-in-
law, but he stated that he does not have any such writing of bill
or any handwriting. The complainant has not remained
consistent in his evidence. He is not telling the truth. The cause
of suicide does not become clear on record. The reason put
forward by the witnesses, of deceased Prafulkumar going in
depression because of the slap by the sisters, does not get
proved on record. It appears that such a story is created by the
prosecution witnesses. Such fact of slap is not reflected in the
suicide note. The sisters being the cause, for both the deceased
to stay separately from the family is also not proved by the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Rather complainant and
the husband of PW9 were responsible to force the accused and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
the father of deceased Prafulkumar to make them stay
separately. The whole fault is thrown upon the accused.
24.7 The cause of death of Tinaben is not proved. The
allegation of harassment to Tinaben is not proved. What is the
direct cause of death has not been proved to draw the case for
abetment to cause suicide.
24.8 The marriage period is for the period of two and a half
year. Provision of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(in short "Evidence Act") would get attracted for presumption to
abetment of suicide by a married woman. It states that if a
married woman commits suicide within seven years of the
marriage and it is shown that her husband or his relative
subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume that the suicide
was abetted by the husband or his relatives. Section 113A of the
Evidence Act introduces a presumption, meaning the Court can
infer that the suicide was abetted if the conditions are met. The
stage of application of Section 113A would arise only when there
is initial evidence of any act on part of accused which would fall
within the definition of cruelty.
24.9 In the case of Hans Raj v. State of Haryana , [(2004) 12
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
SCC 257], Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
12. The question then arises as to whether in the
facts and circumstances of the case the appellant can be
convicted of the offence under Section 306 IPC with the aid
of the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian
Evidence Act. Any person who abets the commission of
suicide is liable to be punished under Section 306 IPC.
Section 107 IPC lays down the ingredients of abetment
which includes instigating any person to do a thing or
engaging with one or more persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of a thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place
in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of
that thing, or intentional aid by any act or illegal omission
to the doing of that thing. In the instant case there is no
direct evidence to establish that the appellant either aided
or instigated the deceased to commit suicide or entered into
any conspiracy to aid her in committing suicide. In the
absence of direct evidence the prosecution has relied upon
Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act under which the
court may presume on proof of circumstances enumerated
therein, and having regard to all the other circumstances of
the case, that the suicide had been abetted by the accused.
The explanation to Section 113-A further clarifies that
cruelty shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of
the Penal Code, 1860..."
13. Unlike Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act,
a statutory presumption does not arise by operation of law
merely on proof of the circumstances enumerated in
Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Under Section
113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has first
to establish that the woman concerned committed suicide
within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage
and that her husband (in this case) had subjected her to
cruelty. Even if these facts are established the court is not
bound to presume that the suicide had been abetted by her
husband. Section 113-A gives a discretion to the court to
raise such a presumption, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, which means that where the
allegation is of cruelty it must consider the nature of cruelty
to which the woman was subjected, having regard to the
meaning of the word "cruelty" in Section 498-A IPC. The
mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven
years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to
cruelty by her husband, does not automatically give rise to
the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her
husband. The court is required to look into all the other
circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
has to be considered by the court is whether the alleged
cruelty was of such nature as was likely to drive the woman
to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health of the woman. The law has been succinctly
stated in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9
SCC 618.
"12. This provision was introduced by the Criminal
Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-
1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof
where helpless married women were eliminated by being
forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and
incriminating evidence was usually available within the four
corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not
available to anyone outside the occupants of the house.
However, still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption
is intended to operate against the accused in the field of
criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the
foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section
113-A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113-A, it
must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide,
(ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of
seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband
or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to
cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid
circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide
had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of
her husband. Parliament has chosen to sound a note of
caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is
only permissive as the employment of expression 'may
presume' suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability
of the abovesaid three circumstances shall not, like a
formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the
presumption may be drawn the court shall have to have
regard to 'all the other circumstances of the case'. A
consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may
strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience
of the court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The
expression -- 'the other circumstances of the case' used in
Section 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause-and-
effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for
the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the
least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of
a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in
defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available
on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase 'may
presume' used in Section 113-A is defined in Section 4 of
the Evidence Act, which says -- 'Whenever it is provided by
this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either
regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved,
or may call for proof of it."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
24.10 To prove the charge of Section 498A of IPC, the
prosecution has to establish that the husband or his relative
subjected such woman to cruelty. The term 'cruelty' is explained
in two parts of Section 498A. The first part speaks of willful
conduct of a nature that is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the life, limb or
health, either physical or mental of such woman.
24.11 The second part of Section 498A of IPC provides for
harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet unlawful demand for any property
or valuable security on account of these failure or any person
related to her to meet such demand.
24.12 Section 498A of IPC does not attract every harassment
or every type of cruelty. The prosecution has to establish that the
beating and harassment of the deceased were with a view to
force her to commit suicide or to fulfill the illegal demand of
dowry.
24.13 In the case of Raj Rani (Smt.) Vs. State (Delhi
Administration), [(2000) 10 SCC 662] it was observed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
4. We have gone through the entire writing contained
in the suicide note. It makes a serious castigation against
her husband for being an addict to narcotic drugs. Then
she made a general allegation against her mother-in-law
and in a lesser degree towards the appellant. But
unfortunately she did not advert to any concrete instance
which can be termed as cruelty as defined in Section 498-A
of the Penal Code, 1860. The utterances said to have been
made by the appellant towards the deceased were to her
chagrin and she had taken them very seriously and in the
suicide note she described such utterances as not worthy of
reproduction.
5. It is not enough that the deceased felt those words
hurting, it must be subjected to judicial scrutiny and the
Court must be in a position to hold that those words were
sufficiently hurting enough as to amount to "cruelty" falling
within the parameters fixed in Section 498-A of the Penal
Code, 1860. The area remains grey and vague. Not a single
word said to have been spoken by the appellant as against
the deceased had been put on record by the deceased in the
suicide note in spite of the fact that the said note is a very
lengthy letter running into several paragraphs. The tenor
and language of the suicide note would reflect that she was
not an illiterate lady. As the Court is rendered helpless to
judge whether the words which the deceased heard from
the appellant would amount to cruelty, it is far from
possible for the criminal court to hold that she is guilty of
the offence of cruelty as envisaged in the section. It is also
to be pointed out that the deceased did not mention a single
deed which the appellant would have done against her. All
that is said against the appellant was that she spoke
something which she took as objectionable.
24.14 Here there are more than sufficient proof that deceased
husband and wife were staying separately. There is no iota of
evidence by specific and cogent proof that the accused were
harassing Tinaben and torturing her continuously even after
they shifted to the rented house. The evidence prior to their
shifting at the new place are not sufficient enough to constitute
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
cruelty within the meaning given under section 498 A. The
allegation of harassment is general in nature. The witnesses
stated that accused as sister-in-law and mother-in-law were
harassing Tinaben. What kind of harassment and for what
purpose had not been proved. It appears that deceased Tinaben
wanted to move away from the family and insisted to stay
separate. The evidence proves that the complainant and his son
and the husband of PW9 Sharmishtha had forced the accused
and the father of deceased Prafulkumar to separate them.
24.15 The grandmother of Prafulkumar died on the earlier day
and they committed suicide on the next day. There is no
evidence of anything happened at the place of grandmother's
house. There is no evidence that there was any willful conduct of
the accused which drove Tinaben to commit suicide. There is no
proximate reason or incident to drive Tinaben to commit suicide.
They were residing separately since last four months of their
death. They had a child. They had separated with a better hope
of living independently, without bearing the responsibilities of
parents. It was not that they had no other alternative, but to
commit suicide. They had carved their own way for life. There is
no allegation of harassment or cruelty to Tinaben in the suicide
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
note.
24.16 The sisters-in-law and parents had no quarrel with the
grandchild. They had also gifted grand child on his birth. The
'Garbo' was also offered to goddess in the name of the grandchild
Janak.
24.17 Prosecution failed to establish any proximate reason or
incident for the suicide of Tinaben.
24.18 For the cause forwarded for suicide of Prafulkumar is
slaps from sisters in the market area while going to his job at the
bank. The peon of the bank and the Manager of the Bank has
not stated of any such incident. Rather as per the peon,
deceased Prafulkumar had never complained about his sisters
and mother. It is not that Prafulkumar had stopped going to his
job at the Bank because of such incident. Further, no person
from market area has corroborated these facts though it could
have been done, had such incident actually occurred since
accused no.1 was a known figure, as was a Sarpanch of the
village. Further the evidence to this regard is also not consistent,
one of the witness PW8 stated that sisters slapped him in the
bank, while witnesses from the bank do not corroborate such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
allegation.
24.19 For that matter, even if such allegation of witnesses are
believed, then, simple act of reprimand by sisters to younger
brother for his behavior of not fulfilling his moral obligations of
looking after the parents or expressing anger would not definitely
amount to instigation or intentional aid to the commission of
suicide. Such act has actually not taken place, had it been so,
and that was the cause of suicide and that Prafulkumar had
gone in depression and had found it a prestige issue and hurt on
his ego, he would have certainly noted so in his suicide note.
24.20 The suicide note shown is only of Prafulkumar, while
there is no suicide note of Tinaben. Nor the suicide note bears
anything to infer that it was for and behalf of both. There is no
allegation by the witnesses, nor any mention in the suicide note,
which can be taken as willful action of accused, which compelled
the commission of suicide, leaving no option for the deceased.
25. Every Court is required to examine every case on its own
facts and circumstances keeping in consideration the
surrounding circumstances.
26. In Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda (supra), the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Supreme Court has held as under:
"17. Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those who abet the
act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under
this section, the prosecution must establish that the
accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased.
This involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions
outlined in Section 107 of the IPC. These conditions include
the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to
commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the
act was carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to
act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own life.
18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a
well-established legal principle that the presence of clear
mens rea-the intention to abet the act is essential. Mere
harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused
guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must
demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that
led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of
mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be
evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the
foundational requirement for establishing abetment under
the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a
deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute
to the act of suicide. The same position was laid down by
this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan,
wherein it was observed that:
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person
in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part
of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The
intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order
to convict a person under Section 306IPC there has
to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and
that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed
suicide."
27. In the case of State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, [(1994) 1 SCC
73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
"15. We are not oblivious that in a criminal trial the degree
of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil
proceedings. In a criminal trial however intriguing may be
facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made
against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable
doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm
of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof
beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after
the introduction of Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-A of
the Indian Evidence Act. Although, the court's conscience
must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when
there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the
accused in respect of the offences alleged, it should be
borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof
in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges
made against the accused have been proved beyond all
reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and
circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidences
adduced in the case and the materials placed on record.
Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater [(1950) 2 All ER 458 : 1951
P 35 (CA)] (All ER at p. 459) has observed that the doubt
must be of a reasonable man and the standard adopted
must be a standard adopted by a reasonable and just man
for coming to a conclusion considering the particular
subject-matter."
28. In wake of the analysis of the evidence on record and to the
principle of law as laid down in the referred judgements, this
Court is of an opinion that the learned Trial Court has erred in
the appreciation of the evidence, Trial Court has even committed
error in the appreciation of law. The circumstances of the case,
as has come on record do not prove the guilt of the accused.
Order of conviction passed of the accused is not consistent with
the evidence which requires appreciation in accordance to the
law, as laid down in connection with the offence under Sections
498A and 306 of IPC. The Trial Court has committed error by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
placing reliance on the assumptions, not permissible in law. The
element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred it
must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without foundational
evidence of cruelty no legal presumption should be drawn,
evidence has to effectively show that the accused directly
instigated or aided the deceased to die by suicide. The evidence,
in the form of suicide note can provide insight into the mental
state and intentions of the deceased. Suicide note, similar to a
dying declaration, cannot directly be admitted as the sole
evidence for the conviction of an accused. The genuineness of
the suicide note and its credibility can be verified only after
coming to the conclusion that the same had been written by the
deceased. To connect the accused with suicide, the prosecution
must prove that the accused had the intention to instigate or
aid, the commission of suicide as required by Section 306 of the
IPC for abetment to commit suicide. This would require
demonstrating that the accused either instigated another to
commit suicide or aided them in doing so. The Trial Court has
committed gross error while assessing the evidence and material
on record, and failed to appreciate and analyse the suspicious
circumstances which were glaring, creating doubt towards
suicide note. Prosecution is required to prove the case beyond
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
reasonable doubt. There cannot be presumption of mens rea in
case of abetment to suicide unless demonstratively proved and
becomes explicitly discernible. The conviction is required to be
set aside since the prosecution had failed to prove the case.
29. In view of the above discussions and observations, the
present appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the
present appellants passed vide judgment dated 26.12.2005, by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa in
Sessions Case Nos.30 of 2004 and 69 of 2004 is quashed and set
aside. The present appellants are acquitted. Bail bonds stand
discharged. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the concerned
trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/maulik/Caroline
