Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhupendrabhai @ Bhagabhai Naranbhai ... on 5 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/178/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 178 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHUPENDRABHAI @ BHAGABHAI NARANBHAI ROHIT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR. KULDEEP D VAIDYA(7045) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 05/06/2025
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
15.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No.2, Anand (hereinafter referred to as " the Trial
Court") in Sessions Case No.46 of 2009, whereby accused were
acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 323, 506(2), 498(a),
313 read with Section 114 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 is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1,
daughter-in-law of accused Nos.2 and 4, and sister-in-law and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/178/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
brother-in-law of accused Nos.3 and 5, respectively. As per the case
of the complainant, she was married to accused No.1 approximately
one year prior to the lodging of the FIR, which came to be
registered on 30.01.2009. It is the specific allegation of the
complainant that all the accused persons subjected her to physical
and mental cruelty, accompanied by persistent demands for dowry.
2.2. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 27.01.2009, the
complainant was compelled to undergo abortion at a private
hospital situated at village Panosara. At that time, she was allegedly
accompanied by accused Nos.2 and 3, who coerced her into
terminating her pregnancy, accusing her of conceiving the fetus
through an illicit relationship with another man. The complainant
has asserted that the fetus, which was approximately three and a
half months old, was medically aborted under duress. Thereafter,
she was discharged from the hospital.
2.3. Subsequently, it is alleged that when she was residing at her
materimonial home, the accused persons summoned her paternal
uncle and aunt to her parental residence and informed them that
the complainant was carrying a fetus conceived through an
extramarital relationship, and the same had been terminated to
safeguard the family's reputation in society. The accused
purportedly demanded that her maternal relatives take the
complainant back to their custody.
2.4. With this background of facts, FIR came to be lodged against
accused under Sections 323, 506(2), 498(a) read with Section 114 of
the Code.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/178/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
2.5. 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.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. PARTICULARS EXH.
No.
1 Papers regarding the treatment of the victim at 11
Ashutosh Hospital
4 Cases where further investigation of the crime 17
has been handed over to the P.S.E
Section 313 of the IPC for criminal
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
length on behalf of the appellant-State. She has taken me through
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/178/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
oral and documentary evidence on the record of the case.
3.1. Learned APP would submit that serious allegations regarding
commission of grave offences have been levelled against the
accused, and the prosecution has adduced sufficient and cogent
evidence to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
However, despite such material on record, the learned Trial Court
has erroneously acquitted the accused.
3.2. Learned APP further contends that the complainant has
specifically and unequivocally deposed against the accused, stating
that she was subjected to persistent physical and mental cruelty and
was forced to abort her pregnancy. On the basis of such clear and
consistent testimony, the prosecution has successfully established
the commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A read
with Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.3. It is further submitted by learned APP that the Trial Court has
failed to consider the gravity of the offence, which is not only an
atrocity against a woman but also a crime against the unborn child.
The learned APP submits that the forced termination of pregnancy,
as supported by medical evidence adduced during trial, squarely
attracts the penal provisions invoked by the prosecution, and
therefore, the accused deserve to be convicted accordingly.
3.4. Additionally, it is submitted that considering the short span of
marriage -- barely one year -- during which the complainant was
subjected to extreme cruelty and was compelled to undergo
termination of pregnancy, the acts of the accused warrant strict
penal consequences.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/178/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
4. Before delving into the merits of the present appeal, it would
be apposite to revisit the settled position of law as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of authoritative
pronouncements, wherein the Apex Court has laid down guiding
principles and parameters to be borne in mind while adjudicating
appeals arising from judgments of acquittal.
4.1. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/178/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
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;
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/178/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
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."
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 prosecution examined several witnesses, including the
complainant. Prosecution Witness No.1 (P.W.1), the doctor who
treated the complainant on 27.01.2009, clearly deposed that he
merely performed curative therapy and removed the infected or
non-viable part from her body. P.W.1 specifically admitted, both in
his examination-in-chief and cross-examination, that he had not
performed a termination of pregnancy, i.e., abortion. However, he
further stated that there were no external injury marks found on the
body of the complainant and that the medical history recorded in
the treatment papers was based entirely on the statement of the
complainant herself.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/178/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
4.4. As per the testimony of P.W.1, the complainant expressed her
unwillingness to continue the pregnancy due to her young age and
had taken medication to induce miscarriage, which subsequently
led to complications necessitating medical intervention. The doctor
(P.W.1) further admitted that in order to save her life, he
administered necessary treatment with the express consent of the
complainant and her family members. He also categorically
confirmed that at the time of examination, the complainant was
fully conscious, mentally alert, and physically stable.
4.5. In light of the above evidence, it is evident that the
termination of pregnancy was not carried out at the behest or under
coercion of the accused. Accordingly, the essential ingredients to
attract the offence under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code are
neither made out nor established.
4.6. Moreover, a plain reading of the FIR as well as the cross-
examination of the complainant (P.W.2) further corroborates the
fact that there was no forcible termination of pregnancy (abortion).
Thus, the prosecution has even failed to make out a prima facie
case under Section 313 IPC.
4.7. The allegations of cruelty leveled against the accused are not
corroborated by any independent witnesses. On the contrary, from
the cross-examination of the complainant (P.W.2), it has emerged
that when she was unwell following the treatment undertaken on
27.01.2009, she left for her parental home in the company of her
uncle and aunt. Thereafter, the accused allegedly did not make any
efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial home. It was in this
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/178/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
context that the complainant lodged the FIR and subsequently
initiated maintenance proceedings before the competent Court.
4.8. She has further admitted during her cross-examination that
when certain members of the accused's family visited her to
persuade her to return back to the matrimonial home, she refused
to accompany them. Notably, the prosecution has failed to examine
crucial witnesses, such as the complainant's uncle and aunt, who
were directly involved during the relevant period and could have
thrown light on the material events. Likewise, no neighbours of the
accused have been examined or brought on record to substantiate
the allegations of cruelty.
4.9. The allegations of cruelty, as made by the complainant, are
vague, omnibus, and general in nature, lacking in specificity or
cogency to inspire confidence. No particular incident of cruelty has
been established with clarity or corroborative evidence. It appears
that due to matrimonial discord between the complainant and
accused No.1--her husband--the other family members have been
implicated in the alleged offence without any credible or
independent supportive evidence on record.
4.10. 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.
4.11. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (supra), unless the findings recorded by
the trial Court are shown to be perverse, manifestly erroneous,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/178/2010 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025
undefined
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
