Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bharatbhai Rameshbhai Aadesara on 3 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1524/2009 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1524 of 2009
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHARATBHAI RAMESHBHAI AADESARA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. JAY MEHTA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. JAY G THAKER(9944) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 03/06/2025
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
16.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No.3, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as " the trial Court")
in Sessions Case No. 142 of 2008, whereby accused was acquitted of
the charges framed under Sections 323, 498(C), read with Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC").
2. The short facts emerges from record reads are as under:-
2.1. The complainant happens to be the wife of the Accused and
unfortunately passed away during the course of medical treatment,
having succumbed to burn injuries sustained due to self-immolation.
The prosecution alleges that the deceased committed suicide by
pouring kerosene on herself, allegedly on account of mental and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1524/2009 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2025
undefined
physical cruelty inflicted by the accused.
2.2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant got
married to accused in the year 2003. The incident of suicide
occurred on 18.03.2009. Out of the said wedlock, the couple had a
minor son who was approximately two years old at the time of the
incident. As per the complaint, the accused had quarreled with the
deceased on the date of the incident, accusing her of not properly
taking care of their child, and subjected her to physical assault.
Owing to such alleged harassment and mental agony, the deceased
is stated to have set herself ablaze.
2.3. A dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate,
wherein the deceased attributed her extreme step to the quarrel and
physical abuse meted out by her husband on the day of the
incident. She stated that in a fit of anger and distress, she poured
kerosene on herself and set herself on fire. Due to sustaining
approximately 90% burn injuries, she could not survive and
eventually succumbed during the course of treatment.
2.4. Upon completion of investigation and recording of statements
of several witnesses, including the family members of the deceased,
a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 306, 498A, and 323 of the Code.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined the
following witnesses and produced documentary evidence to
substantiate the charges levelled against the accused:--
ORAL EVIDENCE
P.W. NAME OF THE WITNESS EXH.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1524/2009 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2025
undefined
1 Dr. Nutan Ashokbhai Lunagaria, Medical Officer 12
Magistrate
deceased
9 Dolatrai Mohanrai Sadavrati, T.K.A. 28.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. PARTICULARS EXH.
No.
before death
condition
4. Learned APP submitted that the dying declaration of the
deceased was duly proved by the prosecution, wherein the charges
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1524/2009 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2025
undefined
leveled against the accused stood substantiated, warranting
conviction for the serious offences alleged. It was further submitted
that the deceased, while in a fit state of mind, clearly stated in her
dying declaration that she was subjected to physical assault by her
husband and was not permitted to visit her parental home. Due to
the continuous mental and physical cruelty inflicted upon her, she
took the extreme step of ending her life.
4.1. Learned APP contended that the essential ingredients of
Section 498A of the IPC were duly established by the prosecution.
Moreover, as the duration of the matrimonial relationship was less
than seven years at the time of the incident, a statutory presumption
under Section 113A of the Act ought to have been drawn against
the accused, thereby making him liable to be convicted under
Section 306 of the IPC.
4.2. It was further argued that the learned Trial Court erred in
observing that, in the absence of specific allegations detailing the
nature and time of the alleged cruelty, the benefit of doubt
deserved to be extended to the accused. It was submitted that in
cases involving grievously injured victims or dying declarations, it
would be unreasonable to expect a detailed narration of each and
every incident of cruelty. The overall tenor of the statement and the
circumstances surrounding the incident ought to have been given
due weight.
4.3. Learned APP further submitted that the Trial Court has
erroneously observed that the nature of the quarrel between the
accused and the deceased was a mere outcome of normal wear and
tear of matrimonial life, and on that basis, has wrongly acquitted the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1524/2009 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2025
undefined
accused.
4.4. Learned APP respectfully contended that the mere non-
support of the prosecution case by the family members of the
deceased cannot, by itself, entitle the accused to the benefit of
doubt, particularly when the dying declaration -- being the last
statement of the deceased -- has been duly proved on record and
carries substantial evidentiary value.
4.5. In light of the above submissions, learned APP urged this
Hon'ble Court to allow the present appeal by setting aside the
judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and to convict the
accused for the offences charged, in accordance with law.
5. 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.
5.1. One of the recent pronouncement, in which, the Supreme
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1524/2009 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2025
undefined
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
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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1524/2009 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2025
undefined
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.
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."
5.2. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1524/2009 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2025
undefined
the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused.
5.3. The prosecution has successfully established the authenticity
of the dying declaration by examining the Executive Magistrate who
recorded the same, as well as the medical officer who certified the
mental fitness of the deceased-complainant at the time of its
recording. Nonetheless, it would not be safe to base the conviction
of the accused solely on the dying declaration, particularly when
the other oral evidence led by the prosecution -- especially that of
the close relatives of the deceased -- does not support the
prosecution's case.
5.4. The prosecution examined the mother, paternal uncle, and
maternal uncle of the deceased-complainant, who were cited as
P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, and P.W.8 respectively. However, all these
witnesses failed to support the case of the prosecution. Their
testimonies indicate that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty
by the accused. Furthermore, they deposed that at the relevant time,
the condition of the deceased in the hospital was extremely critical,
and according to them, she was unable to speak properly and was
experiencing severe pain.
5.5. Even as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer, Mr.
Dolatrai Mohanrai Sadavrati (P.W.9), it has been stated that when he
inquired with the deceased regarding the incident, she informed
him that her husband had accused her of not properly taking care
of their son. He further deposed that the deceased told him she was
subjected to mental harassment by the accused, which allegedly led
her to attempt suicide by pouring kerosene on herself.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1524/2009 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2025
undefined
5.6. However, the evidence of other prosecution witnesses,
including the Executive Magistrate, does not reveal that the
deceased was subjected to sustained or continuous cruelty at the
hands of the accused. It is true that in her dying declaration, in
response to Questions Nos.11 and 12, the deceased replied that
there was a quarrel between her and her husband in the afternoon
on the date of the incident, during which she was physically
assaulted by him. She further stated that, in a fit of anger, she
poured kerosene on herself and attempted to commit suicide. In
response to Question No.12, she alleged that her husband used to
subject her to regular physical abuse and did not permit her to visit
her parental home, which compelled her to take the extreme step.
5.7. However, as discussed hereinabove, the testimonies of the
family members of the deceased do not corroborate the version
stated in the dying declaration. Moreover, the post-mortem report
does not reveal any evidence indicative of any physical assault or
injuries suggestive of sustained abuse, thereby weakening the
prosecution's case on the aspect of cruelty.
5.8. It is true that a quarrel may have occurred between the
deceased and the accused, which is not uncommon in matrimonial
relationships. However, it cannot be presumed that such a sporadic
quarrel, by itself, would necessarily lead a spouse to take such an
extreme step of committing suicide. Even if such an unfortunate act
is committed by one of spouse, the another one cannot be held
criminally liable unless the essential ingredients of Section 498A
read with Section 306 of the IPC would clearly established by the
prosecution through leading cogent and convincing evidence on
record, which in fact missing in the case on hand.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1524/2009 ORDER DATED: 03/06/2025
undefined
5.9. Upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence and in view of
the aforementioned glaring inconsistencies and deficiencies in the
prosecution case, the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court
while acquitting the accused appear to be just, reasonable, well-
founded, and in consonance with the settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence and procedural law. Therefore, this Court finds no
justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of
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.
6. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the learned trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds
shall stand cancelled. The record and proceedings, if requisitioned,
shall be returned to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
MANISH MISHRA
