Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Babubhai Ramjibha Koli on 12 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 196 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BABUBHAI RAMJIBHA KOLI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. L.B. DABHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 12/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT)
1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
challenging the judgment and order dated 08.01.1999
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot
(hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Sessions Case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
No. 256 of 1993. The State is in appeal before us. By way of
the impugned judgment and order, the respondent no. 1
who happens to be the sole accused has been acquitted of
all the charges levelled against him under Sections 376, 306
and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as "IPC")
2. The short facts of the prosecution case read as under:-
2.1 The complainant's daughter, Jyotsanaben, died due to
burn injuries on 12.10.1992 at around 8:00 a.m. while she
was cooking inside the house. As per the prosecution's case,
based on an FIR lodged by the deceased's mother,
Radiyaben (wife of Ranchhodbhai Kanjibhai), Jyotsanaben,
aged about 16 years, committed suicide near her house as a
result of being pregnant due to the actions of the accused. It
was alleged in the FIR that the accused had made a false
promise of marriage to Jyotsanaben and, on that basis,
established physical relations with her. As a result, she
became pregnant, with the pregnancy estimated to be
around 14 weeks at the time of the incident. According to
the complainant, her daughter had informed her about the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
pregnancy and revealed that when she informed the
accused, he refused to marry her and stated that he had
only used her for his own pleasure. It is further alleged that
the accused not only refused to accept responsibility but
also provoked her to commit suicide by telling her to do so if
she wished.
2.2 It has further come on record that the deceased
disclosed the details regarding her pregnancy and the
involvement of the accused to her mother, Radiyaben, on
11.10.1992. Radiyaben, in turn, shared this information
with her husband and brother-in-law in the morning hours
of 12.10.1992. The incident resulting in Jyotsanaben's
death took place later that morning, around 8:00 a.m. on
12.10.1992. The incident has taken place around 08.00 am
morning on 12.10.1992. The FIR came to be lodged on
13.10.1992 at Rajkot Taluka Police Station under Sections
376, 506(2) and 306 of IPC being I - C.R. No. 441 of 1992.
2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate
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. 256/1993.
2.4 The accused was duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it
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. 1 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 1, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record.
2.5 To bring home the charge against the accused, the
prosecution has examined following oral and documentary
evidences.
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW Name of the witness Exh.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
Rajeshbhai Kureshi
Govindbhai Raval
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
Ramjibhai Bedi
29.12.1992 (Age Certificate)
29.12.1992
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
3. After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the
further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was 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 his behalf and stated that a false case
has been filed against them. After the arguments of the
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 the accused from the
charges levelled against him.
4. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been
elicited in favor of the respondent. The case has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondent
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
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the
respondent. Perused the impugned judgement and order of
acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the
prosecution on record of the case.
6. Learned counsel Mr. L.B. Dabhi took this Court
through the entire body of evidence presented by the
prosecution on record and submitted that the learned Trial
Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
of the serious charges levelled against him, which,
according to the prosecution, were clearly established
through the evidence on record.
6.1 Learned counsel Mr. Dabhi further submitted that the
postmortem report confirmed that the deceased,
Jyotsanaben, was pregnant at the time of her death and
that she died due to burn injuries. He emphasized that
Jyotsanaben was only 16 years old and that her death was
the result of abetment by the accused, for which he should
have been held liable, but was wrongly acquitted by the
learned Trial Court.
6.2 Learned counsel Mr. Dabhi also pointed out that the
complainant, who is the mother of the deceased, confirmed
that the pregnancy was the result of a physical relationship
between her daughter and the accused. Since the deceased
was a minor at the time of the incident, the act of
establishing physical relations with her amounts to an
offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.
6.3 Learned counsel Mr. Dabhi further argued that the
charges against the accused are of a very serious nature. By
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
making a false promise of marriage and thereby inducing a
minor girl into a physical relationship--and later reneging
on that promise--the accused not only exploited the girl but
also instigated her to commit suicide. For this, he ought to
have been convicted under Section 306 of IPC.
6.4 Learned counsel Mr. Dabhi submitted that the
prosecution examined not only the complainant but also
other family members and witnesses. The medical officer
who conducted the postmortem confirmed both the fact of
pregnancy and the cause of death as burn injuries.
7. Per contra, learned advocate, Mr. Pravin Gondaliya
appearing for the accused has vehemently opposed the
appeal contending, inter alia, that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove charges levelled against accused.
7.1 Learned counsel Mr. Gondaliya further contended that
the entire case presented by the complainant is based on
conjecture and surmise, and that there are significant
lapses in the investigation. As a result, the prosecution has
failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
7.2 Learned counsel Mr. Gondaliya submitted that no
blood sample or DNA test of the fetus was conducted, which
could have conclusively established whether the pregnancy
resulted from the alleged physical relationship between the
deceased Jyotsanaben and the accused. In the absence of
such medical evidence, he argued, the accused cannot be
held guilty of the offences alleged.
7.3 Learned counsel Mr. Gondaliya would submit that the
exact date and time when the accused allegedly refused to
marry Jyotsanaben has not been established on record. It
appears, he argued, that upon learning of her pregnancy,
the deceased may have taken the extreme step of suicide,
and the accused has been wrongly implicated in the case
without adequate evidence.
7.4 Learned counsel Mr. Gondaliya would submit that
after a thorough evaluation of the evidence, the learned Trial
Court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused.
He argued that this finding should not be interfered with by
this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction,
especially in an appeal against acquittal. Mr. Gondaliya
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
emphasized that it is a well-settled legal principle that
where two views are reasonably possible, the one that favors
the accused should be adopted. This approach, he
contended, was rightly followed by the Trial Court.
Considering the limited scope of interference in appeals
against acquittal, he urged that this Court should not
disturb the well-reasoned judgment and order of the learned
Trial Court. In view of the above submissions, learned
counsel Mr. Gondaliya respectfully prayed that the present
appeal be dismissed.
8. We have gone through the records and after re-
appreciating the evidence and keeping in mind, the ratio
laid down by the Supreme Court of India while deciding
acquittal appeal, we deem it appropriate to decide the
appeal.
9. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage,
we would like to remind ourselves the position of law settled
by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its various decisions,
whereby it has laid down several criteria while deciding
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
acquittal appeal.
10. It would be apt to refer the recent decision of Supreme
Court of India in the case of Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka [(2024) 8
SCC 149], wherein, it has been held as under:
"39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. 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,
reappreciate 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
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 reappreciate 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
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."
11. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio and after
reappreciating the evidence on record, following glaring
facts, serious contradictions and improbable story of
prosecution which are noticed by learned Sessions Court,
while acquitting the accused, are required to be considered
while deciding the present appeal.
12. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence
on record, arrived at the conclusion that the deceased,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
Jyotsanaben, was indeed pregnant and had committed
suicide. However, the learned Trial Court also observed that
the evidence on record was insufficient to conclusively
establish the involvement of the accused in the alleged
crime. The Court noted certain improbabilities in the
prosecution's case with regard to the allegation of abetment.
Consequently, the benefit of doubt was extended to the
accused, leading to his acquittal. The learned Trial Court
thus held that the prosecution had failed to prove the
charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
13. Upon reappreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, we find ourselves unable to take a view
different from that of the learned Trial Court. None of the
submissions made by the learned APP, Mr. Dabhi, are found
to be convincing, owing to the following infirmities and
lapses on the part of the prosecution in establishing the
charges against the accused.
13.1 There is no substantial evidence on record to implicate
the accused under Section 376 of the IPC, apart from the
oral testimony of the complainant, which itself contains
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
several material contradictions.
13.2 The prosecution failed to obtain any medical evidence
to verify the blood group of the fetus in comparison with
that of the accused.
13.3 No DNA test of the fetus was conducted by the
prosecution, which could have definitively established
whether the pregnancy resulted from the alleged physical
relationship between the accused and the deceased,
Jyotsanaben.
13.4 No specific time or place of instigation has been
brought on record to prove that the accused abetted the
victim, Jyotsanaben, to commit suicide. Such proof is
essential to establish the charge under Section 306 of the
IPC.
13.5 It would be apposite to reproduce Section 107 read
with Section 306 of IPC which reads as under:
Section 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
13.6 At this stage, it would be apt to refer to the recent
judgement of the Apex Court in case of Prakash & Ors. V.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal
5543/2024, wherein, the Apex Court has held in para 22
and 26 as under:
[22] It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in cases
of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or
indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It has
been held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the
context of the offence of abetment of suicide involves
multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour, the
court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the
act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court
further observed that a mere allegation of harassment of the
deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is
such action on the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that
such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of
occurrence. It was further clarified that the question of mens
rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It
was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such
nature where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or a snap-show of anger, a particular case may fall
short of the offence of abetment of suicide, however, if the
accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or
deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular
case may be that of abetment of suicide. This Court held that
owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and
could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt
with differently by different persons, each case is required to be
dealt with its own facts and circumstances.
23.....
24.....
25.....
[26] Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person is
the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. However, it
has been clarified on many occasions that in order to link the
act of instigation to the act of suicide, the two occurrences must
be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus or a
chain, with the act of suicide by the deceased being a direct
result of the act of instigation by the accused person.
14. It is now a well-settled position of law that if a person
commits suicide as a result of abetment by another
individual who instigates such an act, that individual would
be liable for the offence of abetment of suicide subject to
that such instigation would be in close proximity to act of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
suicide. However, in the present case, apart from the bare
assertion of the complainant--who, according to the FIR,
came to know about the pregnancy on 11.10.1992, just a
day prior to the incident--there is no concrete evidence
brought on record establishing any specific act of instigation
by the accused albeit in close proximity to act of accused.
As discussed herein above, in the absence of clear details
regarding the alleged instigation by accused, the benefit of
doubt extended to the accused by the learned Trial Court
constitutes a plausible and legally justifiable view.
15. After reappreciating and reexamining the evidence on
record, we could not find that there is an error of law
committed by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the
accused and as such, the findings recorded are neither
perverse nor erroneous, whereby, no interference, as such is
required by this Court while exercising its appellate power
under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
16. Thus, after going through evidence and its re-
appreciation as well as reasons assigned by learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/196/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2025
undefined
Sessions Court, the prosecution has failed to prove the
charges against accused which are just and proper and we
are in complete agreement with reasons assigned by the
learned Sessions Court while acquitting accused.
17. Considering these set of evidences on record and in
light of the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
reproduced hereinabove, which deals with the law on
acquittal, we are of the opinion that no error has been
committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot
in Sessions Case No. 256 of 1993 while acquitting the
respondent.
18. The appeal is accordingly DISMISSED. Resultantly, the
impugned judgment and order of the trial court is hereby
confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record
and proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned
Trial Court forthwith.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
