Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Nai Rajeshkumar Madhavlal on 10 November, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 804 of 2001
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NAI RAJESHKUMAR MADHAVLAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR J K SHAH APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 10/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 07.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.268 of 2000 for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A, 302 read with Section 114 of Indian
Penal Code, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
short).
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as
under:
2.1. The prosecution case in brief is that 14 years prior to the incident
the accused No.1 Rajeshkumar Nai married with deceased Anjanaben.
That Rajeshkumar Nai was working in Abudhabi and in the beginning the
deceased was also staying with her husband in Abudhabi. That out of the
said wedlock they blessed with two children namely Kukul and Yogesh.
It is the further prosecution case that three years prior to the incident, the
deceased came back and started residing at Jasalpur, Tal. Kadi and the
deceased was staying there with her children. During that period of three
years the accused No.2 Sureshkumar Nai who is a distant relative of the
deceased (cousin brother of accused No.1) started harassing the deceased
as he wanted to have illicit relation with her. However, Anjanaben, the
deceased did not accede to his demand and therefore, he threatened her
with dire consequences. That the accused No.2 instigated the accused
No.1 against the deceased and therefore, the accused No.1 wanted to get
divorce from the deceased. As the accused failed in their motive, the
deceased was sent to her parental house. However, with the intervention
of the members of her family, she was again persuaded to stay with the
accused No.1 at Jasalpur. The accused did not like the company of the
deceased and therefore they burnt her by pouring Kerosene on her and
committed her murder. The said offence is committed by the accused
with the help of each other. Thus, the accused have committed the
offences under Sections 302, 498 (a) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Police after investigation charge-sheeted the accused for the
aforesaid offences.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
2.2. The FIR was lodged at Kadi Police Station. After investigation,
chargesheet was filed before the learned JMFC, Court. However, as the
said Court lacks jurisdiction to try offence under Section 302 IPC, the
case was committed to the Sessions Court and it was registered as
Sessions Case No.268 of 2000 for trial. On conclusion of evidence on the
part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating
circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent-accused so as
to obtain explanation/answer as provided under Section 313 of the Code.
In the further statement, the respondent-accused denied all incriminating
circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is
innocent and a false case has been filed against him. After examining the
evidence, witness testimonies and submissions from both sides, the
learned Court below recorded the finding in favour of the respondent-
accused acquitting him of the charges levelled against them.
3. We have heard learned APP for the appellant - State and minutely
examined oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced before
the learned Sessions Court concerned.
4. Mr. J K Shah, learned APP appearing for the appellant - State
submits that the impugned order of acquittal is required to be interfered
with as the evidence produced on record proves the involvement of the
accused in the commission of crime in question. He has further submitted
that evidence of the complainant examined as PW 1 - Mr.Vishnubhai at
Exh.20 and other important witness examined as PW 5- Mr.Jivanji
Varvaji at Exh.25; though have supported the case of prosecution in toto;
however the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of
these two witnesses. He has further submitted that evidence of the Doctor
before whom the FIR was lodged and examined at Exh.43 is also relevant
and he has also supported the case of prosecution. He has further
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
submitted that most of the witnesses examined were from the parental
side of the deceased and have supported the factum of harassment being
meted out to the deceased at the hands of the accused and no such
omission or contradiction in the evidence of the said witnesses have come
on record to discard their evidence. He has further submitted that the
prosecution witnesses have narrated the incident which corroborates with
the other supporting material produced by the prosecution and therefore,
the order of acquittal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.1 He has further deposed that evidence of PW 13 - Ms. Shilpaben
Yadav who has certified the burn injuries, along with the beating injuries
on the body of the deceased which was the cause of death of the deceased
and thus the prosecution has proved its case. It is further submitted that
the IO has also deposed as to how and in which method the entire
investigation is conducted and no such lacuna is found there-from to
record the acquittal of the accused; however the learned trial Court has
recorded acquittal and committed serious error.
4.2 Learned APP has further referred to the evidence of the other
material witnesses and submitted that from the evidence of the said
witnesses, the involvement of the accused in commission of the crime is
proved and therefore, this Court may interfere with the said finding and
record the conviction. He would therefore submit to allow this appeal.
5. Heard the learned APP for the appellant - State and perused the
deposition of witnesses as also documentary evidence placed on record as
well as the order passed by the learned Sessions Court.
6. At the outset, evidence of PW 1 - Vishnubhai Nayi, complainant
examined at Exh.20 is required to be seen. The said witness has deposed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
in his testimony about the occurrence of the incident. He has deposed in
his testimony that deceased was his younger sister and her marriage was
solemnized with accused No.1 prior to 18 years of the incident who used
to stay in Aarab Country. Witness has further deposed that deceased also
went to abroad and out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with two
children. Witness has further deposed that after her return from abroad,
she used to stay at Vajasalpur and at that time accused no.2 came to her
and asked for illicit demand; however she did not succumb to him and in
retaliation, accused no.2 gave threat of spoiling her life if she did not
accept such demand. This Witness has further deposed that accused No.2
instigated accused No.1 and therefore, accused no.1 gave physical and
mental torture and asked for divorce, as also accused no.1 also used to
write a letter for divorce addressing the complainant. Witness has also
deposed that whenever deceased used to come at his residence, she talked
about the accused No.2 making illicit demand and also instigating her
husband. This Witness has also deposed that after return from abroad,
accused No.1 left her sister at Mehsana and thereafter again she was sent
back; however she continued to talk of harassment being meted out to her
at the hands of the accused. This Witness has deposed that on 13/09/2000
incident took place and they were informed by somebody over telephone
that accused No.1 ignited his sister and she was taken to Civil Hospital,
Ahmedabad and they found in dead condition. This Witness has deposed
that as per his belief accused killed his sister by igniting and therefore,
complaint was given. This Witness has been cross-examined by the other
side however nothing showing the involvement of the accused in
commission of the crime of meted out the harassment at the hands of the
accused has come on record from the evidence of this witness. During
the cross-examination, this witness has admitted the fact of deceased
having consumed poison at earlier point of time.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
7. PW No.5 - Jivanji Varvaji who is the resident of the said village to
which the complainant belongs has been examined at Exh.25 and has
deposed in his testimony that during the settlement talks of divorce took
place amongst the elderly persons of the society, he had asked something
to the deceased and response thereto, she told him that she was not beaten
up and was given food and one person had created false allegation against
her and created doubt upon her. Witness has deposed that on 13 th of the
instant, the complainant came with shouting that Anjana was set at ablaze
and after verifying the said fact, they went to Jasalpur and thereafter after
the private inquiry conducted by them they all went to the Kadi Police
Station and informed about the incident. This Witness has been cross-
examined by the other side; however no such fact showing the direct
involvement of the accused has come on record from the evidence of this
witness.
8. PW No.13-Dr.Shilpaben Kanubhai Yadav who has been examined
at Exh.43. This Witness has conducted the postmortem on the body of
the deceased and cause of death of the deceased was stated to be shock
due to extensive burn injuries over the body. Witness has further deposed
that injuries were sufficient to cause death. This Witness has been cross-
examined by the other side and has stated that if any lady runs in a
burning condition and dashed with the wall and/or doors to save herself,
then such kind of injuries can be caused.
9. All the Panch witnesses to the Panchnama drawn by the IO have
turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution.
10. PW No.12 - Aatmaram Puvar, Investigating Officer is examined at
Exh.41. This Witness has deposed in his testimony about the method and
manner in which the entire investigation is conducted and after having
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
collected the sufficient material against the accused persons the
chargesheet came to be filed against them.
11. From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it appears that they
have deposed as to the method and manner in which the incident took
place and it has come on record that deceased was alone at the time of
occurrence of the incident and admittedly none of the accused was found
to have been present at the time of incident or near the vicinity of the spot
and the said fact is admitted and corroborated from the evidence in the
form of the FSL Report. It also appears from the report of the FSL and
Panchnama of the place of offence and the map that there were two
rooms out of which one room could have been locked from outside; but
other room which was not possible to have been locked from the inside.
Furthermore, as per the report of the FSL, the kerosene seems to have
been sprinkled on the walls and doors of the surrounding vicinity; but as
admitted by the Doctor who performed the postmortem of the body of the
deceased has deposed that the possibility of deceased having tried to save
herself on being burnt and might have gone here and there cannot be
ruled out and thereafter jumped in the water tank. No such independent
witnesses residing in the nearby vicinity have been examined.
12. Insofar as the deceased having subjected to mental and physical
torture / cruelty is concerned, as per the evidence of the complainant, he
knew such thing from the telephonic talked or when deceased used to
visit her parental home; but no such material in support of such fact of
giving mental torture at the hands of the accused has been surfaced from
the evidence of the prosecution, which would prove the factum of
accused having used to harass the deceased. No such independent
witnesses in this regard has been examined and supported the case of
prosecution. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to refer to the evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
of PW 5 - Jivanji who has deposed that while they were gathered for the
issue of divorce of the deceased amongst the elderly persons of the
society, on being asked, deceased herself has stated that she was not
beaten up; food was given to her and false allegations were made and
doubt was created over her. No such fact of harassment being meted out
to her at the hands of the accused has come on record. Thus, the
allegations of giving mental torture as mandated in Section 498-A of the
IPC is missing from the material witnesses of the prosecution and
therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings recorded
by the learned trial Court recording the acquittal of the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC in absence of any
evidence.
13. Furthermore, the accused were not present prior to and at the time
of commission of the crime and thus the veracity of the entire incident
alleging offence under Section 302 of the IPC creates doubt. Of course,
the prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution are the near
relatives of the deceased and lodged the FIR after taking sense of the
elderly persons and after taking aid of one retired PI which itself shows
that such FIR is lodged to show the implication of the accused in the
commission of the crime. Insofar as the charge of offence punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC is concerned, admittedly no such direct
evidence has been produced by the prosecution showing the involvement
of the accused in commission of the crime. True it is that, deceased died
due to the burn injuries and the said fact was proved from the scientific
evidence; but prosecution has measurably failed to prove that as to how
and by whom such burn injuries were caused to the deceased. Since the
prosecution has failed to establish the presence of the accused at the scene
of offence prior in point of time and after commission of offence, the
findings arrived at by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC cannot be interfered
with. It is the sole duty of the prosecution to prove its case to the
touchstone of the evidence led by it and here the evidence so led by the
prosecution is not sufficient to prove the charges levelled against accused
beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. Thus, now the whole case of the prosecution rests on the
circumstantial evidence; however the prosecution has also failed to place
on record any such circumstances to link the chain so as to surface the
implication of the accused in commission of the crime in question. It is
pertinent to note that even as per the case of the prosecution, in absence
of any motive, that itself is sufficient to dislodge the case of prosecution
if other proven circumstances could form a chain so complete as to
indicate that in all human probability it is accused and no one else who
committed crime yet, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive
plays an important part.
15. Now, reverting back to the facts of the present case, nothing sort of
any such material seems to be placed on record to indicate as to motive
behind the commission of the offence in question and therefore,
admittedly the whole case rests on the circumstantial evidence and
considering the way in which the entire incident have been described,
followed by the investigation carried out by the IO and to convict the
accused in absence of any direct evidence though dealing with the case
based on circumstantial evidence, the important aspect which requires to
be considered are such as (i) whether circumstances relied by prosecution
have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; (ii) whether those
circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt
of accused; (iii) whether those circumstances taken cumulatively form a
chain so far complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
all human probability crime was committed by accused; (iv) whether they
are consistent only with hypothesis of accused being guilty; and lastly (v)
whether they exclude every possible hypothesis except one to be proved.
16. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, in consonance with the
aforesaid factors, now the case on hand of the alleged incident of murder
of the deceased is solely based on the circumstantial evidence. Not only
that, the body of the deceased was found in her own house as per the FSL
report and therefore, under the aforesaid circumstances, the motive in
such disclosure statement and the very conduct on the part of the accused
requires to have a glance. However, none of such circumstances seems to
have been proved by the prosecution.
17. Furthermore, there appears material contradiction as to the incident
in question and the alleged involvement of the accused since as
admittedly the deceased while talking with PW No.5 - Jivanji Varvaji
(Exh.25) in regards to the settlement talks of divorce took place amongst
the elderly persons of the society, on being asked told to the said witness
that she was not beaten up and was given food and one person had
created false allegation against her and created doubt upon her. Thus, in
absence of any sufficient material, particularly the motive, the heavy duty
is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt
to complete the entire chain to link the involvement of the accused with
the crime in question which indicate that in all human probability it is
accused and no one else committed crime in question, particularly, when
the case of case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence as the
motive plays an important part because, not only it makes story
believable; but also helps Court in fortifying an inference which may be
drawn against accused from other attending circumstances such as the
proximity within which the incident took place, which in the present case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
seems to be lacking.
18. Furthermore, if the evidence of the complainant is examined, it
appears that the complaint was lodged after getting the sense from the
elderly person of the society, as also after getting the advise from one of
the retired PI and therefore, the evidence of the said witness also creates
doubt with regard to implicating the accused in the commission of the
crime. It is also pertinent to note that no direct evidence or witness in
support of the case of prosecution has come on record and thus the entire
case of the prosecution case comes under the shadow of doubt. Therefore,
the conclusion arrived at by the learned competent court of acquitting the
respondent - accused does not warrant any interference in absence of
reliable evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the
order passed by the competent court is just and proper and in our opinion,
the same does not require any interference.
19. At this stage, this Court may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex 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 various earlier 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
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."
20. In the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2023)
9 SCC 581] the Hon'ble Apex Court has 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 reappreciating 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/804/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
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."
21. In light of the above legal position and for the reasons recorded in
the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the fact that the case of the
prosecution does not get support from the evidence recorded by the
learned trial Court, the present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned
forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura
