Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chandrakantbhai Rugnathbhai ... on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 486 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHANDRAKANTBHAI RUGNATHBHAI CHANTVANI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 23/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter
referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No.
75/2007 on 19.01.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court
has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
under Sections 306, 498(A), 323, 504 and 114 of IPC.
1.1 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no.
1 - Chandrakantbhai Rungnathbhai Chatvani had expired
on 31.12.2017 and the respondent no. 2 - Ranjanben
Chandrakantbhai Chatvani expired on 17.02.2017. The
appeal qua the respondent no. 1 and 2 was abated by an
order of this Court dated 03.03.2025.
1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" as they stood in the original case for the sake of
convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case
are as under:
2.1 The accused nos. 1 and 2 are the father-in-law and
mother-in-law of deceased Komalben, the accused no. 3 is
the husband and the accused nos. 4 and 5 are the sisters-
in-law of deceased Komalben who was married to the
accused no. 3 about 11 years prior to the incident. Out of
the wedlock Komalben and the accused no. 3 - Ketanbhai
had two daughters namely Disha and Princey and ten days
prior to 06.04.2007, Komalben had come to her brothers
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
house with the younger daughter - Princey. On 06.04.2007
at around 00.45 hours Komalben sprinkled kerosene on
herself at her brother's house and set herself ablaze. She
was taken to the Government Hospital for treatment and
she filed a complaint under sections 498A, 323, 114 of the
IPC, which was registered at Bhaktinagar Police Station I
C.R. No. 112/2007. The said Komalben - wife of Ketanbhai
Chatvani expired during treatment and Section 306 of IPC
was added in the FIR.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Rajkot and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,
the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Rajkot as per
the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure
and the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 75/2007.
2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were
provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207
of the Code. A charge at Exh. 22 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 23 to 27, wherein, the accused denied the contents of
the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was
taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to
bring home the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCE
Sr. No. PW Name of the witness Exh.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
12 Arrest note 68/70
Panel doctors
2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the
further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein,
the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on
record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or
examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false
case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were
heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement
and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the
charges levelled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has
filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial
Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the
learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and
during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been
elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondents
and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted,
illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the
reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are
improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the
respondent nos. 3 to 5. Perused the impugned judgement
and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire
evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court
through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of
the case and submitted that the complainant has fully
supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned
judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged
this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the
respondent guilty for the offences.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the
observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of
interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa
& Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC
415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, this
Court stated:
"While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of
the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised
while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of
appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence.
However, one significant difference is that an order of
acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court,
where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence
and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not
reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a
different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear
in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour
of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit
of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should
assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial
court".
From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of appellate
Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which
the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
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 emphasize 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 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.
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well
crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally
culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned
Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the
learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the
prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable
doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re
appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after
re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court
was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate
Court to interfere in the same.
8. As the appeal pertains to a case under Section 306 of
the IPC, it would be appropriate to reproduce the
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mahendra Awase vs The State of Madhya Pradhesh
Criminal Appeal No. 221/2025 (@ SLP(Cr) No. 11868/2023)
passed on 17th January, 2025 which is as under:
11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
"306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine."
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a
thing, who-
First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing."
As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to
attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should
have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets
the doing of a thing who Firstly - instigates any person to
do that thing or Secondly - engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of
that thing or Thirdly - intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another,
[1995 Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the
deceased that 'go and die' and the deceased thereafter,
committed suicide. This Court held that:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often
employed in the heat of the moment between quarreling
people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter.
The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the
assumption that these words would be carried out in all
events. ..."
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and
Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order
to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific
abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part
of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide
of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. It was further held that the intention of the
accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to
commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal,
(2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held as under:-
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
before holding an accused guilty of an offence under
Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the
facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the
cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left
the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to
her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or
indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on
the part of the accused which led or compelled the person
to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC
is not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section
306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the person who is said to
have abetted the commission of suicide must have played
an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain
act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the
act of abetment by the person charged with the said
offence must be proved and established by the prosecution
before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed
Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC
618, wherein it was held as under:-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has
examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation".
Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
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."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence and material available on record
where-from an inference of the appellant accused having
abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's
wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this Court are 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 this act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he/she committed suicide." [Emphasis supplied]
9. In light of the above settled principle of law, the
evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Bhupatbhai Pravinbhai
at Exh. 31 and the witness is the panch witness of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at
Exh. 32. The witness has fully supported the case of the
prosecution and he has stated that the place of offence was
shown by witness Rajeshbhai Bhagwanjibhaibhai and the
place was a residential house and burnt clothes were found
at that place. Two matchsticks and one matchbox were
seized by the police and a plastic jar half filled with
kerosene was also seized. The witness has stated that on
24.04.2007, he was called to the Civil Hospital and the
inquest panchnama which is produced at Exh. 33 was
drawn in his presence. The witness has also identified the
muddamaal before the learned Trial Court. During the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused,
the witness has stated that he was known to Rajeshbhai
Bhagwanjibhai about seven years prior to the incident and
deceased Komalben was married 11 years prior to the
incident. The place where the incident occurred was the
residence of the mother of deceased Komalben and the
place of offence was the open space but the jar of kerosene
was found from the kitchen. No kerosene was found from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
the open place and no burnt clothes were found from the
kitchen. In the kitchen, there was no goods which were
spread out and no kerosene was found on the floor. The jar
of kerosene was standing and it was half full. That on
06.04.2007, when he got the news that Komalben was
burnt, he had gone to her house between 00.30 to 00.45
hours and Komalben was at home in a burnt condition.
That at that time, her brother Rajeshbhai, uncle Dilipbhai
and Vinubhai and others took her to the hospital and till
she expired, he had seen her. She was admitted at around
02.00 am in the hospital. The panchnamas were being
written by the police.
9.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Dr. Kishorebhai
Limbabhai Ramani at Exh. 38 and the witness is the
Medical Officer who has performed the post-mortem on the
dead body of deceased Komalben - wife of Ketanbhai
Chatvani. The witness has produced the post-mortem note
at Exh. 39 and has stated that the dead body of deceased
Komalben Ketanbhai Chatwani was brought for post-
mortem on 24.04.2007 and the post-mortem was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
conducted by him and panel doctor - Dr. C. C. Kothari.
There were one degree to two degree burns present on the
body and 7% burns on the head and neck, 18% on both
upper limbs, 33% on the anterior and posterior part trunk,
and 25% on both lower limbs anterior and lateral aspect.
There were signs of inflammation and line of redness
present, singing of hair and greenish yellowish patches of
slough was present over the burn areas. There were no
external injuries except the burns and no fracture was seen
over the body and all the injuries were antemortem. The
final cause of death, as per their opinion, was cardio-
respiratory failure due to septicemia following burns to the
body. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the
cause of death was septicemia and if one portion of the
body is infected, it would be septic but as the whole body
was infected, it was septicemia. Septicemia is generally due
to unhygienic conditions and in the post-mortem note, the
origin of the septicemia was not shown. That if bacteria
comes into the breath, septicemia could follow and even if
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
the relatives of the patient come with unhygienic clothes or
smoke a beedi, septicemia could take place. From the
injuries on the dead body of the deceased, it could be said
that the injuries were accidental and if a person was having
mental issues, they would have suicidal tendencies.
9.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Rajeshbhai
Bhagwanjibhai at Exh. 43 and the witness is the brother of
deceased Komalben who has stated that the accused were
mentally and physically harassing her sister and the
accused no. 3 used to consume liquor and physically
assault his sister. On 05.04.2007, the accused no. 3 had
assaulted his sister and he was called to their house but he
does not know the reason for their quarrel and he brought
his sister to his house. That his sister committed suicide
due to the ill-treatment by the accused. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that the deceased was at his house from
15 days prior to the incident and he had taken his sister to
Dr. Hansaliya's Hospital situated on Vidyanagar Main Road
to give her electric shocks. That his sister had mental
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
issues and the marital life of his sister was 12 to 13 years.
That during this period of 12 to 13 years, his sister Komal
did not file any complaint against the accused and the
daughters of his sister and the accused no. 3 were residing
with the accused no. 3 and studying but he does not know
in which school they are studying. The accused no. 4 was
married in the year 1998 and she had taken a divorce in
the year 2006 and was remarried in the same year. The
accused nos. 1 and 2 were residing in A.G Society on
Kalawad road, and his sister and the accused no. 3 had
taken a house in Vimalnagar since the year 2006 and were
residing there since then. Dr. Rangani and Dr. Nagnecha
are Psychiatrists and they had treated his sister Komalben
and she had studied in the hostel at Jodiya. That after she
returned from Jodiya, her behaviour had changed and they
had a doubt that she was possessed and they were getting
her treated. On the day of the incident, he had gone to his
room which was on the first floor and he does not know
what had happened downstairs but heard his mother and
sister shouting and he woke up and came down and when
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
he came down his sister Komalben and mother were
present. There was no kerosene jar in the open space and
no matchbox at that place and he had put water on his
sister and doused the flames. That his sister was screaming
and she was fully burnt and when she reached the hospital
she was unconscious and she regained consciousness only
on the next day. That he had informed the doctor that his
sister was burnt but he does not know the reason why she
was burnt.
9.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Sonalben
Rajeshbhai Sedani at Exh. 45 and the witness is the sister-
in-law of deceased Komalben who has supported the case of
the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the
learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated
that the accused no. 5 was residing in the staff quarters
with her husband and the accused no. 4 was married and
residing at Visavadar. The incident had occurred at their
house and Komalben was at their house from 15 days prior
to the incident. The accused nos. 1 and 2 were residing at
A.G. Society, Kalawad Road for many years and after the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
incident Komalben was unconscious and she had regained
consciousness on the next day.
9.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Dhirajlal
Chhaganbhai at Exh. 47 and the witness is the Executive
Magistrate who has recorded the dying declaration of
deceased Komalben which is produced at Exh. 48. During
the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he had
gone to record this dying declaration at 03.00 am and the
dying declaration was recorded on the basis of Janvajog
Entry No. 251/2007. As per the Yadi, it was mentioned that
Komalben had sustained burn injuries at her paternal
house and when he reached the hospital, the doctor had
merely told him that Komalben was conscious and she was
fully burnt. When he saw Komalben, she was covered with
a bed sheet on her and besides Komalben, there were many
patients in the ward.
9.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Parulben
Bhaveshbhai at Exh. 51 and the witness is the younger
sister of deceased Komalben who has supported the case of
the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated
that on the day of the incident, her husband had received a
phone call that Komalben was burnt and they reached the
hospital and found that Komalben was under treatment.
9.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Dr. Premjibhai
Jivrambhai Joshi at Exh. 52 and the witness has stated
that on 06.04.2007, he was on duty at Civil Hospital,
Rajkot when Komalben was brought for treatment. She had
sustained first to second degree burns on her body and the
burns were about 60% and her condition was poor and
serious. The medical certificate is produced at Exh. 53.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness has stated that the police had
inquired about the certificate from him on 17.04.2007 and
he had given the certificate to them.
9.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Dr. Jitendra
Jivrambhai Joshi at Exh. 55 and the witness has stated
that on 06.04.2007 he was on duty at Civil Hospital, Rajkot
when patient Komalben Ketanbhai Chauhan was admitted
in the burns ward. The Executive Magistrate had come to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
record her dying declaration and at that time the patient
was fully conscious. The dying declaration was recorded
from 03.15 am to 4.00 am and the patient was competent
to give the dying declaration. During the cross-examination
by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has
stated that the endorsement in the dying declaration at
Exh. 48 was made after the dying declaration was recorded
and in the dying declaration, it is not mentioned that the
patient was fully conscious. The patient Komalben was fully
burnt and he cannot say whether she had sustained second
and third degree burns.
9.8 The prosecution has examined PW9 - Jagdish Dayalal
Rajyaguru at Exh. 58 and the witness was working as the
PSO, Bhaktinagar Police Station on 24.04.2007. When the
message was received and he went to Civil Hospital, Rajkot
and drew the inquest panchnama which is produced at
Exh. 33.
9.9 The prosecution has examined PW10 - Jayendrasinji
Dhirubha Chauhan at Exh. 63 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. The
witness has stated that Janvajog Entry No. 251/2007 was
registered and thereafter, the offence at Bhaktinagar Police
Station I - C.R. No. 112/2007 was registered. During the
cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused,
the witness has stated that at the first instance it was
mentioned that for some unknown reasons Komalben had
sprinkled kerosene on herself and had set herself ablaze.
The marital life of Komalben was 13 years and she was
residing separately from her in-laws. When he reached the
hospital at around 02.30 am, the family members of
Komalben were present but he did not inquire anything
from them and he did not record the statement of
Komalben. That he was at the hospital for about one hour
but during this time he did not record the statement of
Komalben. Komalben was fully burnt and in the complaint
produced at Exh. 66, it is not mentioned as to whether
Komalben was conscious and there is no endorsement of
the doctor regarding the same. That he had not met the
doctor and during investigation it was found that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
incident had occurred at the paternal home of Komalben
and she was at her paternal house for 10 to 15 days prior
to the incident. That while the bail application of the
accused was being heard before the Sessions Court, he had
filed an affidavit and had verified the documents of the
mental condition of Komalben regarding treatment by
Psychiatrist - Dr. Vijay Nageja, Dr. Chetan D. Hansalia and
Dr. Rangani and he had reported to the Sessions Court that
deceased Komalben was being treated by these doctors. The
accused nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were residing separately from
the deceased. That when he reached the hospital, he found
that the condition of Komalben was very poor and he was at
the hospital for more than one hour.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, as per the case of the prosecution the incident
has occurred at the paternal house of deceased Komalben
and she was residing at her brother's place for more than
10 to 15 days prior to the incident. After the incident has
occurred, she was taken to the hospital by her brother and
others and there is nothing on record to show what had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
actually occurred on the date of the incident. There is no
iota of evidence that the accused were in contact with
deceased Komalben anytime immediately prior to the
incident and in the entire evidence it has come on record
that the marital span of Komalben was about 12 to 13
years and during this entire time she has not filed any
complaint against any of the accused. As per the case of the
prosecution, the incident has occurred on 06.04.2007 and
she was brought to the hospital at 01.38 am and she
expired on 24.04.2007. The dying declaration was recorded
on 06.04.2007 between 03.15 am to 04.00 am and
Janvajog Entry No. 251/2007 was registered and
thereafter, the offence was registered at I - C.R. No.
112/2007. It has also come on record that the deceased
was taking treatment from many psychiatrists and the
matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer -PW10 -
Jayendrasinhji Dhirubha Chauhan and the report to that
effect was submitted before the learned Sessions Court.
PW3 - Rajeshbhai Bhagwanjibhai - the brother of deceased
Komalben who took her to hospital has stated that she was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
unconscious and she had regained consciousness on the
next day and from the record of the case, the dying
declaration was recorded on the same day between 03.15
am to 04.00 am. There is no medical evidence regarding the
condition of Komalben when she was brought to the
hospital and she was under treatment from 06.04.2007 to
24.04.2007 and during this time the papers regarding her
treatment and the history given by her when she was
brought to the hospital at the first instance has not been
produced on record. Moreover, in the evidence it has come
on record that Komalben's mother was present when the
incident has occurred but the prosecution has not
examined her before the learned Trial Court. The mother of
Komalben would be the best witness to depose about what
had actually happened as she was an eye witness but her
evidence has not come on record. Moreover, as per the
evidence of PW1 - Bhupatbhai Praveenbhai, when he
reached the house of deceased Komalben immediately after
the incident, her brother Rajeshbhai, their uncle Dilipbhai,
Vinubhai and others were present but Dilipbhai and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
Vinubhai have not been examined before the learned Trial
Court. Moreover, as per the panchnama produced at Exh.
32, the incident had occurred in the entrance of the house
which was an area of 6 feet x 10 feet but there was no
traces of kerosene at that place. The jar of kerosene was
found from the kitchen and the burnt matchsticks as also
the matchbox were found from the kitchen. The burnt
pieces of clothes were found from the open place and in the
kitchen as well as the other rooms, all the items in the
house were found intact. PW1 - Bhupatbhai Praveenbhai
has stated that there was no kerosene found in the open
space and no kerosene was found on the floor of the
kitchen also. As per the complaint produced at Exh. 66,
Princey - the daughter of the deceased was with the
deceased but she has not been examined before the learned
Trial Court. Moreover, on perusal of the complaint
produced at Exh. 66, there is no endorsement about the
place and time where the complaint has been recorded.
There is no iota of evidence of any mental or physical
harassment by the accused who were all residing separately
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
and in the entire evidence it has come on record that the
accused nos. 1 and 2 were residing separately from the
deceased and the accused no. 3, and the accused nos. 4
and 5 were married and staying separately from many years
prior to the incident.
11. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of
Chandrappa (supra) and Mahendra Awase (supra), the
learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in
proper perspective and there does not appear to be any
infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the
evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that
the learned Trial Court was completely justified in
acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them.
The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are
absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has
been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is
in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by
the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/486/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the
present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same
is dismissed.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in
Sessions Case No. 75/2007 on 19.01.2012, is hereby
confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
