Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Hasmukhbhai Babubhai Parmar on 2 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/820/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 820 of 2008
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HASMUKHBHAI BABUBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR P B KHANDHERIA(5228) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 02/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Code"), assailing the judgment and order dated
01.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Fast
Track Court, Gondal Camp at Dhoraji (hereinafter referred to as
"the trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2007, whereby all the
accused were acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 498-A,
306, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, " the IPC"),
read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for
short, "the Dowry Act").
2. The short facts emerges from record reads are as under:-
2.1. The First Information Report (for short, " FIR") came to be
lodged by Jivrajbhai Virabhai Chandrapal on 07.05.2007 with
Gondal Division Police Station, District Rajkot, being C.R. No. 32 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/820/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
2007, against the accused persons, who are the husband, father-in-
law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the deceased Minaben. The
first informant is the brother of the deceased. As per the FIR, the
deceased Minaben was married to accused No.1 in the year 2001,
and out of the said wedlock, the couple was blessed with three
children.
2.2. It is alleged that accused No.1 subjected the deceased to
physical and mental cruelty and made unlawful demands for dowry.
The deceased had reportedly disclosed this harassment to the first
informant and other family members. It is further alleged that
accused No.1 was habituated to consuming alcohol and would
physically assault the deceased on several occasions. Due to
continuous harassment, cruelty, and persistent dowry demands at
the hands of the accused, the deceased was allegedly compelled to
commit suicide on the afternoon of 06.05.2007.
2.3. Upon learning of the incident, the first informant immediately
rushed to the hospital, where he saw the body of the deceased
Minaben. He subsequently lodged the FIR on the following day.
2.4. Upon completion of the preliminary investigation and collection
of relevant material, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet
against the accused persons for the alleged offences. Thereafter, the
learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The
trial Court accordingly framed charges against the accused at
Exhibit-24 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
306, and 114 of the Code, read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Act.
2.5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined the following
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/820/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
witnesses and produced documentary evidence to substantiate the
charges levelled against the accused:--
ORAL EVIDENCE
P.W. NAME OF THE WITNESS EXH.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. PARTICULARS EXH.
No.
2 Panchnamas 333541
3 Medical Certificate 31, 34, 36,
37, 38, 39,
40, 63, 64
4 Station Diary Notes, Police Lists 42, 54 5o
62.65
5 Forensic Science Assistant Laboratory Reports 44 to 47
2.6. Thereafter, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the
learned trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to
establish the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt
and accordingly acquitted them of all the charges levelled against
them. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal, the
State has preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/820/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
length on behalf of the appellant-State.
3.1. The learned APP submitted that the trial Court has committed a
serious error of law and facts in acquitting the accused. It was
contended that the judgment suffers from legal infirmities and
perversity, and therefore, warrants interference by this Hon'ble
Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 378 of
the Code.
3.2. The learned APP further submitted that the prosecution has
successfully established all the charges levelled against the accused.
She submitted that the oral as well as documentary evidence on
record unerringly point toward the guilt of the accused, who have
committed a heinous offence, and deserve to be convicted and
appropriately punished.
3.3. It was further submitted that the learned trial Court has
erroneously given undue importance to minor discrepancies and
contradictions in the oral testimonies of some of the prosecution
witnesses, which do not go to the root of the matter. Granting
benefit of doubt on such trivial grounds amounts to a perverse and
unsustainable finding.
3.4. The learned APP further submitted that the first informant,
along with other family members of the deceased, including her
uncle and aunt, have categorically deposed that accused No.1,
being the husband of the deceased Minaben, subjected her to
continuous mental and physical harassment. It is further alleged that
accused No.1 was habituated to consuming alcohol, and his
conduct amounts to cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/820/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
the Code, which stands duly proved through the prosecution
evidence.
3.5. The learned APP contended that once the prosecution had
successfully established the charge of cruelty under Section 498-A of
the IPC, the trial Court ought to have drawn the statutory
presumption under Sections 113A and 113B of the Act. In light of
the established facts and surrounding circumstances, the trial Court
erred in not convicting the accused under Section 306 of the IPC for
abetment of suicide.
3.6. The learned APP further submitted that the prosecution has also
proved the demand for dowry through consistent and corroborated
testimonies of the deceased's family members. A holistic
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record
clearly establishes all charges levelled against the accused. The
accused, therefore, deserve to be held guilty and convicted for
committing grave offences against a woman, which are not only
punishable under law but also shock the conscience of society. In
view of the above submissions, the learned APP urged this Hon'ble
Court to allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment of
acquittal rendered by the trial Court.
4. Before adverting to the merits of the present appeal, it is apposite
to recapitulate the settled position of law as enunciated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of decisions, wherein
the Court has laid down guiding principles and criteria to be
considered while adjudicating appeals against acquittal.
4.1. One of the recent pronouncement, in which, the Supreme
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/820/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
Court of India in a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and
Others vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 8 SCC 149 has held as under :-
"39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv. State of Bihar and
Another, 2022 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position
covering the field after considering variousearlier judgments and
held as below:-
"29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled
out the following general principles regarding the powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [ Chandrappa
v. State of Karnataka, 2007 4 SCC 415 ] "
42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of the appellate
court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:-
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re- appreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling
reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong
circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc.
are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more
in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than
to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case
of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/820/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb
the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka, 2023 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles
governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing
with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as
follows: -
"8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
acquittal, is entitled to re- appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after re- appreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible
view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence
on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court
cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that
another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal
only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can
be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the
guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and
no other conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has
to be exercised within the four corners of the following
principles:-
41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity;
41.2 That the same misreading/omission to evidence on record;
is based on a consider material.
41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the
view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the
evidence available on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/820/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment
of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the
above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal
rendered by the trial Court."
4.2. Now, bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court regarding the scope of interference in an appeal against
acquittal, this Court proceeds to examine the evidence brought on
record and assess the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court
while acquitting the accused.
4.3. The learned trial Court, while recording the order of acquittal,
has specifically observed that the first informant, as well as the
brother-in-law, uncle, and aunt of the deceased Minaben, who were
examined as prosecution witnesses, had categorically deposed that
they noticed visible injuries on various parts of the deceased's body
when they visited the hospital. However, it was noted that no such
observations were mentioned in their respective statements
recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code. Furthermore,
the post-mortem report of the deceased Minaben, exhibited at
Exh.36, and the medical certificate dated 06.05.2007 issued by the
Government Hospital, Dhoraji, marked at Exh.39, do not make any
reference to such injuries as claimed by the relatives of the
deceased in their oral testimony.
4.4. In view of the above inconsistencies, the learned trial Court
found the oral testimonies of the relatives of the deceased,
including the first informant, to be unreliable and lacking in
credibility.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/820/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
4.5. The prosecution also failed to substantiate the charge of cruelty
under Section 498-A of the IPC. The prosecution witnesses did not
attribute any specific acts of cruelty to accused No.1; rather, their
depositions were vague and general in nature. The absence of
precise and consistent allegations was rightly considered insufficient
by the trial Court to establish the offence of cruelty against the
accused, particularly accused No.1.
4.6. It has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses that accused
Nos. 2 to 4--who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-
law of the deceased--were residing separately from accused No.1
and the deceased Minaben. In the absence of any specific and
direct allegations of cruelty attributable to them, the charges levelled
against them cannot be said to have been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
4.7. The learned trial Court further observed that there were material
contradictions in the oral testimonies of the relatives of the
deceased, particularly concerning the alleged incident of a quarrel
that supposedly occurred during a family marriage function. These
inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the credibility of their
evidence. Moreover, there are no clear or specific allegations of
cruelty made against the accused in their depositions, thereby
justifying the benefit of doubt extended to the accused.
4.8. Upon re-appreciation and independent evaluation of the entire
evidence on record, this Court is not inclined to take a view
different from the one adopted by the learned trial Court while
acquitting the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/820/2008 ORDER DATED: 02/06/2025
undefined
4.9. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (supra), unless the
findings recorded by the trial Court are shown to be perverse,
manifestly erroneous, arbitrary, or contrary to the settled principles
of law, mere possibility of an alternative view is not sufficient to
warrant interference by the appellate Court. In the present case, no
such perversity or illegality is found in the reasoning assigned by
the trial Court while recording the acquittal. Hence, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the present appeal is devoid of merit
and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal stands
DISMISSED.
5. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed
by the learned trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any,
shall stand cancelled. The record and proceedings, if requisitioned,
shall be returned to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
MANISH MISHRA
