Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Hardas Hira Sadiya on 8 May, 2025
Author: Samir J. Dave
Bench: A.Y. Kogje, Samir J. Dave
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 91 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HARDAS HIRA SADIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 08/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE)
1. This Appeal is filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated
28.09.2012 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Porbandar in Sessions Case No. 42 of 2010. By the impugned
judgment and order, the respondents-original accused were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 498(A),
304-B, 306, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are as under:
2.1 That, the daughter of the complainant married with the
original accused no.1. Prior to one year from the date of
incident, the original accused no.1-husband of the deceased
daughter of the complainant sought Rs. 1 lac as husband of the
sister in law of the deceased Komal (daughter of the
complainant) purchased a plot and he had a need of money
but, due to poor condition of the father of the deceased Komal,
demanded money did not provide to the husband of Komal
(accused no.1) thus the husband and mother in law of
deceased Komal were started to harass and torture the
deceased Komal and prior to one month from the date of
incident, when deceased had gone to her parental home at that
time, she disclosed that her mother in law and husband are
torturing her. During her stay at her parental home he gave
birth of one son but after passing over 3 months none had
come to take Komal back to her marital home and thereafter,
after intervention of relatives and leading persons, Komal and
her son were taken to the marital home of Komal and
thereafter, Komal was making phone calls to her parents
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
wherein she was describing about torture and harassment used
by her husband and mother in law towards her but the parents
of Komal convinced her by giving hope that all will be done
good.
2.2 That, on 26.07.2011, the mediator through whom the
husband and mother in law of Komal taken back Komal at her
marital home informed the complainant by making phone that
Komal is ablaze and is passed away thus come immediately and
while reaching to the post mortem room, the complainant
asked them about the incident then the husband and mother in
law of Komal informed him that yesterday night, Komal did not
wash the clothes and did not clean up the utensils and because
of that, mother in law and husband of Komal scolded her and
husband of Komal beaten her thus, she told to drop her at
Bhanvad (parental home) and thereafter, she committed
suicide by setting herself in fire, and pursuant thereto, the First
Information Report came to be registered with Ranavav Police
Station by complainant of this for the offence under sections
306, 304B, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3(1)(4) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2.2 After registration of the complaint, investigation was
conducted, Panchnama was drawn, statements of the witnesses
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
were recorded and upon completion of the investigation as
sufficient evidences to link the accused persons with crime
were revealed, the accused persons were charged-sheeted for
the aforesaid offence.
2.3 Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the
Sessions Court the same was committed to the learned Sessions
Court at Porbandar under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The case was
numbered as Sessions Case No.42 of 2010. The trial was
initiated against the accused persons.
2.4 To prove the guilt against the accused persons the
prosecution has examined the witnesses mentioned in the
impugned order. Similarly, in order to support the case the
prosecution, the prosecution has produced the documents
mentioned in the aforesaid judgment.
2.5 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the
accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and hearing
arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, by
judgment and order dated 28th September 2012, the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar acquitted the accused
persons-respondents of the offence punishable under Sections
498(A), 304-B, 306, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3(1)4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
judgment and order of acquittal of original accused passed by
the Sessions Court, the appellant- State has preferred present
appeal.
3. Learned APP for the appellant-State has submitted that
the order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on
record. That, the learned Judge has not properly appreciated
the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record
of the case in its true and proper perspective and hence,
committed grave error apparent on the record of the case. The
learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that the
marriage of the deceased was solemnized six years prior to the
incident of the complaint and she has committed suicide on
26.07.2010 at the residence of the accused and while
acquitting the accused persons, the learned Judge failed to
appreciate the provisions of Section 113(A) of the Evidence
Act and as per said provisions, if the married woman had
committed suicide within a period of 7 years from the date of
her marriage, the court may presume that such suicide had
been abetted by her husband and such relatives of her
husband.
4. It was submitted by learned APP for the appellant-State
that learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that PW
No.15 Dr. Haresh Gohel who was examined vide Exh. 35, in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
his evidence, fully supported the case of the prsoecution as far
as injuries on the dead body of the deceased as narrated by the
complainant in the complaint and he has produced PM report
of the deceased vide ex. 38, cause of death mentioned therein
was because of burnt injuries. From the aforesaid facts, it is
clear that the accused by causing physical and mental
harassment to the deceased because of that the deceased has
committed suicide by setting herself on fire. Therefore, there
was ample material in the form of the oral as well as
documentary evidence on the record of the case to prove the
prosecution case, though by acquitting the accused persons the
learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error.
5. It was further submitted by learned APP that the
reasons given by learned Sessions Judge is palpably and
unerringly shaky and there were cogent reasons for coming to
the conclusion that the charges against the accused are proved.
The learned Judge failed to appreciate the muddamal was
recovered from the accused, therefore, in such facts and
circumstances of the case also, the learned Judge ought not to
have acquitted the accused from the offence charged against
them. Ultimately, it was requested by learned APP for the
appellant-State to allow this appeal.
6. At the outset it is required to be noted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of
appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the
trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex
Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana
Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in (2006) 6
SCC, 39, the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the
High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54
of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:
"54. In any event the High Court entertained an
appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it
was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
Even while exercising an appellate power against a
judgement of acquittal, the High Court should have
borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that
where two view are possible, the appellate court
should not interfere with the finding of acquittal
recorded by the court below."
6.1 Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid
down the following principles:
"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,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is founded.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
[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 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 curtain
extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in
the nature of flourishes of language to emphasis 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."
6.2 Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising
appellate power, even 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
6.3 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case
of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007) 3
SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court
in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has
observed as under:
"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that
while exercising the powers in appeal against the
order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not
ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal
unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by
some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived
at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person
and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as
perverse. Merely because two views are possible,
the Court of appeal would not take the view which
would upset the judgement delivered by the Court
below. However, the appellate court has a power to
review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse
and the Court has committed a manifest error of
law and ignored the material evidence on record. A
duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to
arrive to a just decision on the basis of material
placed on record to find out whether any of the
accused is connected with the commission of the
crime he is charged with."
6.4 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court
in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors,
reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by
LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the
powers which this Court may exercise against an order of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
acquittal are well settled.
6.5 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal,
the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or
to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the
Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is
held as under:
".... & This court has observed in Girija Nandini
Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR
93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the
appellate court when it agrees with the view of the
trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of
the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the
trial court expression of general agreement with the
reasons given by the Court the decision of which is
under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.
6.6 Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the
reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the
discussion of evidence is not necessary.
7. We have gone through the judgment and order passed by
the trial court. We have also perused the oral as well as
documentary evidence led by the trial court and also
considered the submissions made by learned APP for the
appellant-State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
7.1 The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, found
that in the deposition of the brother of the deceased, who was
examined vide Ex. 31, has stated that husband of sister in law
of her sister purchased a plot at Porbandar and he had a need
of money and therefore, husband and mother of her deceased
sister informed her sister to take Rs. 1 lacs from her parental
home and as the condition of father of the deceased was not
sound thus, was not able to provide such money and
thereafter, when her sister had come to her parental home for
delivery of child at that time, husband of her sister, father in
law, mother in law and husband of sister in law of her sister
had come to take back her to her marital home and at that
time, it was decided that demand of Rs. 1 lac would not be
made and making such kind of compromise, they taken the
deceased with them and as the deceased was taken back to her
marital home with settlement that they will not demand Rs 1
lac thus there is no question of demanding Rs 1 lac from her
sister. Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that
police station is located at some distance from the marital
home of the deceased but any police complaint about any
harassment has not been filed against the accused persons.
7.2 Moreover, the learned trial court has clearly observed in
para 35 of the impugned judgment that witness Bhanubhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
Devabhai Boriya has been examined vide ex. 33 and who was
residing nearby the house of the accused no.1 (husband of the
deceased) and in his deposition, he has stated that on the day of
incident he seen people gathered nearby house of Hardasbhai
wherein the fire was caught in the house of Hardasbhai
wherein Komalben was in fire wherein people gathered there
and brother in law of Komalben sprinkled water over
Komalben and at that time, Hardasbhai (husband of the
deceased) had gone for his work and later on, he had come to
his house and Komalben was died at the place thus, while
considering the deposition of this witness, the learned Sessions
Court has held that it does not appear that the accused was
present at the time of incident.
7.3 Learned Sessions Judge has observed in the impugned
judgment of acquittal that three offenses under Sections 306
and 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are
independent of each other, thus all the facts should be proved
by the prosecution through its own evidence. It is further
observed that the accused no.1(husband of the deceased) was
frequently visiting his in-law's house with the deceased and at
that time, he was warm welcomed by the family members of
the parental home of the deceased. Also if there was no
strained relationship between the two parties due to which she
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
was compelled to take the final step of committing suicide and
the fact of demanding Rs.1 lac, even in view of the document
produced vide No. 61, there is no support for such fact as the
plot has already been purchased and the deed has been
executed thus there is no question of demanding Rs.1 lakh.
Also at the time of incident, accused no. 1's presence at the
scene of the incident is also not found from the testimony of
witnesses of the neighborhood who have been examined.
Because, after the incident, accused no. 1 has been told to have
been called. Learned Sessions Judge has concluded that there is
no mere evidence on record that the accused in this case had
abetted or assisted the deceased to commit suicide.
7.4 In this fact of situation, learned Sessions Judge has found
that there are serious lacuna in the prosecution case and the
prosecution has failed to establish the case against the
respondents. Therefore, the trial court has given the benefit of
doubt to the accused and we do not find any reason to interfere
with the said finding.
7.5 Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the
prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned APP for the appellant is not in a position to show any
evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the
approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/91/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court
has ignored the material evidence on record.
8. In the above view of the matter, we are of the considered
opinion that the trial court was completely justified in
acquitting the respondents-original accused of the charges
leveled against him. We found that the findings recorded by the
trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the
said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by
it.
9. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the
findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of
acquitting the respondents-original accused persons of the
offence under Section 498(A), 304-B, 306, 114 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 3(1)4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the
appeal is hereby dismissed.
10. Record and Proceedings to be sent to the trial Court.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
K. S. DARJI
