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
30.9.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad
(hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 53
of 2009, whereby the accused was acquitted of the charges framed
under Sections 306, 498(a) read with Section 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:-
ORAL EVIDENCE
P.W. NAME OF THE WITNESS EXH.
Medical Officer
2 Dr. Krunal Raojibhai Sharma, Medical Officer 31
Complainant
4 Dakshaben Manubhai Sodhaparmar, Mother of 34
Gujarnar
5 Rameshbhai Chandbhai Sodhaparmar, Gujnar's 35
father
10 Dheeraj Rameshchandra Patel, Investigating 43
Officer
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/16/2010 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. PARTICULARS EXH.
No.
9 Letter from Medical Officer Civil Hospital to 15
F.S.L.
3. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Mr. Meet Thakar,
at length on behalf of the appellant-State. Learned APP took me
through entire evidence on record and read over relevant evidence
of witnesses to prove the case of prosecution.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/16/2010 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
3.1. Learned APP, Mr. Thakar, submitted that the prosecution has
successfully established the charges against the accused by
examining the complainant, who happens to be brother of the
deceased, as well as the parents of the deceased. All of them have
categorically deposed that the deceased committed suicide as a
result of the cruelty inflicted upon her by the accused persons.
3.2. Mr. Thakkar further submitted that the learned Trial Court has
erroneously held that the prosecution failed to prove the element of
cruelty allegedly inflicted upon the deceased - Laxmiben, and has
thereby wrongly acquitted the accused. He submitted that the Trial
Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence brought on record
and did not draw the statutory presumption against the accused,
even though the matrimonial span between the deceased and
accused No.1 was hardly one and a half years. It was further
contended that due to persistent demand for dowry and acts of
cruelty by the accused persons, the deceased was driven to commit
suicide.
3.3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned APP urged this
Hon'ble Court to allow the present appeal and set aside the
judgment of acquittal passed 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/16/2010 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025
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/16/2010 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025
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/16/2010 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025
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, adverting to the facts of the present case, the crucial
evidence which emerged on record -- including the police
statement of the deceased, her dying declaration, and the injury
certificate -- serves to undermine and falsify the entire case put
forth by the prosecution.
4.3. As per the statement of the deceased, Laxmiben, recorded by
the police (Exh.28) on 09.11.2008 -- the very date of the incident
-- she categorically stated that an oil lamp (diya) had accidentally
fallen on her, and due to the presence of kerosene in diya, she
sustained burn injuries. She explicitly stated that no one set her on
fire. She further clarified that there had been no quarrel with
anyone, including the accused. It also emerged from her statement
that it was accused No.1 - her husband - who took her to Civil
Hospital, Nadiad for medical treatment post incident.
4.4. The injury certificate produced at Exh.42 clearly records that
the patient was conscious and narrated the history of injury by
herself. The said certificate corroborates the version given by
Laxmiben, noting the incident as one of accidental burn injury. The
Executive Magistrate appears to have recorded the dying declaration
of the deceased, which is produced at Exh.10, wherein she
reiterated the aforesaid version.
4.5. All these evidence collectively indicates that prior to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/16/2010 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
incident, the deceased - Laxmiben, had no dispute or quarrel with
her in-laws, including her husband. There was no mention or even
a whisper of cruelty or demand for dowry by the accused in any of
her statements, including the dying declaration. When these set of
evidence on record, it would not be believable the story put
forward by complainant by setting of motion a police machinery
through filing FIR.
4.6. FIR came to be lodged after a delay of approximately three
days by the brother of the deceased, based merely on suspicion. He
has candidly admitted during his cross-examination that he filed the
FIR suspecting that something untoward might have happened to
his sister, Laxmiben. Furthermore, the uncle of the deceased,
examined as P.W.4 (Exh.35), also admitted during cross-
examination that the FIR was filed only after deliberation and
discussion amongst the family members.
4.7. The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses
-- such as neighbors of accused who could corroborate the
allegation that the accused had subjected the deceased, Laxmiben,
to cruelty which allegedly drove her to commit suicide.
4.8. In light of the evidence that has come on record, it appears
reasonable to conclude that there is no material to suggest that the
accused inflicted cruelty upon the deceased which resulted in her
death due to burn injuries.
4.9. Upon re-appreciation and independent evaluation of the
entire evidence on record, this Court does not find any compelling
reason to take a view different from that adopted by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/16/2010 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
Trial Court while acquitting the accused.
4.10. 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
shall stand cancelled. The record and proceedings, if requisitioned,
shall be returned to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
MANISH MISHRA
