Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Hetiben Wd/O Bhupat Kalubhai Qagi on 21 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 183 of 2001
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HETIBEN WD/O BHUPAT KALUBHAI QAGI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR. J. M. BUDDHBHATTI(1239) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 21/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT)
1. The present Appeal has been filed by the State under Section-
378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
judgement and order dated 24th November 2000 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Godhra (hereinafter referred to as
"the Trial Court") in Sessions Case No.78 of 2000, whereby the
Trial Court acquitted the respondents from the charge levelled
against them under Sections-302 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C.").
2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE OF PROSECUTION
READ AS UNDER:-
2.1 Accused No. 1 - Hetibhen W/o. Bhupatbhai Kalubhai Pagi, by
way of first information reported on 6th December 1999 before
Lunavada Police Station, that her daughter-in-law namely
Champaben (hereinafter referred to as "victim"), committed
suicide in the house by hanging herself with a rope. It is so
narrated by accused No. 1 in her said information-complaint
that she is residing along with her mother-in-law, son Kanabhai
and unmarried daughters at village Rajgad. Her son Kanabhai
married with the victim 8 to 9 years prior to the said incident,
who have three daughters, wherein, the eldest daughter namely
Raveena is about 5 to 6 years old. As such, they all residing
together, but her son Kanabhai and the victim, along with his
family, residing at backside of her house.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
2.2 As her son Kanabhai went to Ahmedabad for labour work
before few days back of the incident, since last 2-3 days prior to
the incident, an unknown person used to visit the house of the
victim at night and having caught by accused No. 1, then victim
was scolded and further told to discontinue with such illicit
relation, failing which, such act will be reported to her parents
as well as her husband - son of accused No. 1.
2.3 It is further stated in her information - complaint that on the
previous day to 6th December 1999, accused No. 1 disclosed
aforesaid event to her son-in-law, who in turn went to the
village of the victim to meet her parents. So, having felt
embarrassed about the aforesaid illicit act caught by in-laws of
the victim and made known to her parents, she self-
strangulated with the help of rope and accordingly died at her
residence.
2.4 As per the aforesaid information-complaint, such condition of
the victim first saw by her daughter namely Raveena, who in
turn informed this fact to her aunt namely Ratanben, happens
to be the daughter of accused No. 1, who cut the rope and later
on informed this fact to her mother - accused No. 1.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
2.5 At the first instance, on receipt of such information -
complaint, the police treated it as an Accidental Death (A.D.),
having registered Entry No. 25/99, but investigation was carried
out by police official, namely H. R. Mulyani and on completion
of investigation and getting medical opinion, having performed
post-mortem of the victim, it came to light that the cause of
death found to be asphyxia due to strangulation. So, formal
criminal complaint registered on 28th January 2000 and the
same was conducted by ASI Mr. Mansing Rathod, who, after
completion of the investigation and gathering all documentary
evidence as well as recording of the statements of respective
persons, filed charge-sheet against the accused i.e. accused No.
1 - mother-in-law and accused No. 2 - daughter-in-law.
2.6 Thereafter, the case was committed to the Trial Court for trial
to be conducted for the offenses under Section 302 and 34 of
I.P.C. against accused.
3. To bring home the charge levelled against the accused, the
prosecution led the following oral as well as documentary
evidence, which read as under:
3.1 ORAL EVIDENCES:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
Sr. Particulars Exhibit
No.
3.2 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES:
Sr. Particulars Exhibit
No.
accused-1
accused-2
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
3.3 After appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution and
hearing learned advocates for the respective parties, the Trial
Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge
levelled against the respondents accused having found several
irregularities and shortcomings in the evidence of the
prosecution, ultimately, acquitted the respondents accused by
giving them benefit of doubt.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the Trial Court, the prosecution has filed the present
Criminal Appeal.
5. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.
Pranav Dhagat for the appellant State at length who taken us
through various oral evidence as well as documentary evidence,
which are on record. We have independently examined and
appreciated evidence of witnesses.
6. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
6.1 Learned APP Mr. Dhagat would submit that the Trial Court
has committed serious error in law when acquitted the
respondents accused from the charge of murder i.e. Section 302
I.P.C. It is submitted that it is clearly established by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
prosecution by leading ocular and documentary evidence that
victim died due to strangulation and it was not a case of
suicide; thus, the accused could not have been acquitted from
the charge levelled against them.
6.2 Learned APP Mr. Dhagat would submit that the prosecution
examined the Investigating Officer, who collected documentary
and oral evidence; thereby, it was proved on record that except
accused, there would not be any other person who could have
committed such a heinous crime. It is submitted that when the
death of the victim occurred in the house of the accused, the
burden was upon the accused to discharge that under which
circumstances, the incident of so-called suicide and/or
strangulation occurred, which they failed in the present case.
6.3 Learned APP Mr. Dhagat would submit that the parents of the
victim supported the case of the prosecution, inasmuch as,
clearly deposed that the victim was subjected to torture and
there was a quarrel between the accused and the victim about
alleged illicit relation of the victim with another person, such
was the motive of the accused to murder the victim.
6.4 Learned APP Mr. Dhagat would further submit that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
prosecution has also examined Ramabhai (Exhibit 29) and his
father Sanabhai (Exhibit 30), who clearly confirmed the fact
that at previous midnight to the incident, they saw that the
accused were beating the victim. It is submitted that when such
evidence came on record, coupled with the fact that the
marriage span of the victim was hardly eight to nine years,
thereby, there would be a legal presumption be drawn against
the accused for committing the murder of the victim, when
occurred inside matrimonial home.
6.5 Lastly, learned APP Mr. Dhagat would respectfully submit that
the Sessions Court without proper appreciating the evidence on
record, wrongly acquitted the accused from the charges.
6.6 Making the above submissions, learned APP Mr. Dhagat
would humbly request this Court to allow the present appeal.
7. No other and further submissions are made.
8. Before adverting to the issue germane in the appeal, scope and
ambit of acquittal appeal by this Court filed by the State under
Section-378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, needs to be
taken note of. In a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and
Others vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149 ,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
wherein the Honourable Apex Court taking note of its previous
decisions, held thus:
"39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv. State of Bihar and
Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the
field after considering 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 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 of language" to emphasise the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence
on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court
cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another
view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal
only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be
recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the
guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and
no other conclusion was possible."
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."
(emphasis supplied)
9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio, now, even after re-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
appreciation of entire sets of evidence, and so also having gone
through the impugned judgment, due to following factors, the
accused could not be held guilty for commission of crime under
Section 302 of I.P.C. As such, we could not find any infirmity
either in findings so recorded by the Trial Court and its
ultimate conclusion by which accused has been acquitted for
the charge of murder i.e. Section 302 of I.P.C. The aforestated
conclusion is supported by the following reasons:-
10. As per the first information received from accused No. 1 by the
police (Exhibit 15), it was reported that the victim committed
suicide as she was caught by the accused with other person at
night in her house, that too in the absence of her husband
happens to be son of accused No. 1, and according to accused,
due to such reason, the victim committed suicide. Nonetheless,
medical evidence, more particularly the post-mortem report
(Exhibit 22) and the ocular evidence of Dr. Ravi Pranaykumar
(Exhibit 21), would clearly suggest that it was not a case of
suicide, but cause of death was due to strangulation. So, it
would rule out possibility of suicide by victim.
11. Furthermore, accused No. 1 reported the death of the victim at
about 01:15 a.m. early morning on 6th December 1999,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
wherein, clearly stated that the incident of the alleged suicide
was happened around 12:00 midnight on 5th December 1999.
Whereas, Dr. Ravi, who performed the post-mortem of the
dead body of the victim, confirmed that death might have
happened 24 to 36 hours prior to the post-mortem. As per the
record, the post-mortem undertaken at about 13:30 hours on
6th December 1999. Thus, the time of death of the victim
remained undisputed on record. Nonetheless, the fact remained
that heavy burden was upon the prosecution to prove that the
victim died due to strangulation at the instance of the accused
and no one else.
12. The prosecution failed to bring any clinching evidence on
record to prove that only the accused have committed the
murder of the victim, and none else. The parents of the victim
though tried to support the case of the prosecution, but unable
to prove the involvement of the accused in the crime, inasmuch
as, they have not disclosed certain facts and events which they
noticed when reached to the house of the victim on her death.
The parents of the victim examined at Exhibits 26 and 27
respectively, at least confirmed the fact that the son-in-law of
accused No. 1 met them at their village but told them about
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
diarrhea and vomiting of the victim. It further came from their
evidence that accused No. 1 scolded their daughter - victim for
alleged illicit relations. Nevertheless, they have not stated
anyone else about previous torture/cruelty inflicted by the
accused upon victim; rather, they presumed that due to the
aforesaid event of caught her daughter by accused No. 1 and
the family quarrel between them, the accused committed the
murder of the victim. As such, their evidence would not inspire
any confidence either to the Trial Court or on appreciation to
this Court, whereby, can firmly say that the accused only guilty
of committing the crime.
13. The prosecution appears to have examined son-in-law of
accused No.1 namely Ranchhodbhai at Exhibit 31, wherein, he
supported the case of the defence and narrated the entire set of
events which he informed to the parents of the victim when
visited their village. After appreciating the evidence of said
Ranchhodbhai, it can be very well said that parents of the
victim, during their evidence, not disclosed the fact that one
Natubhai, who was present when they reached the house of the
victim, who told them that the victim committed suicide and
accordingly died.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
14. Likewise, the evidence of one Ramabhai (Exhibit 29) and his
father Sanabhai (Exhibit 30) tried to involve the accused in the
crime, having deposed that they saw that there was a quarrel
took place between the accused and the victim on the previous
night and she was beaten by them. When their evidence were
appreciated by the Trial Court and by this Court, it surfaced
that there is an apparent contradiction about their say so far as
the weapon used for beating of victim, inasmuch as, father
Sanabhai deposed that the accused hold cudgel, whereas, son
Ramabhai deposed that the accused hold wood. Furthermore,
Ramabhai in his police statement admitted to have a
relationship with the victim and when the husband of the victim
went out of the house for work, she used to call him at her
residence. Further stated by him in his police statement that he
was also caught red-handed by in-laws of the victim and such
incident was reported to his father, who also slapped him for
committing such act. When the father and son - duo deposed
before the Trial Court, changed their version and tried to
implicate the accused in the crime. It remained undisputed on
record that they were not eyewitnesses to the incident of
murder by the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
15. The Trial Court has correctly observed in its finding while
acquitting both accused that none of the investigating officers
brought on record any clinching evidence whereby can prove
the guilt of the accused; rather, no direct evidence brought on
record which confirms the involvement of the accused in the
crime.
16. Of course, medical evidence, does prove that it was not a case
of suicide and as the cause of death was due to strangulation,
but at the same time, considering the fact that the victim having
relationship with other, then the possibility of the presence of
other person than in-laws of the victim cannot be ruled out in
the house especially when death occurred at night.
Furthermore, eldest daughter of victim who first saw her
mother hanging and reported it to her aunt, not examined by
prosecution on pretext that she was child.
17. Thus, the Trial Court has correctly observed in its opinion that
when second view is possible and in the absence of any direct
evidence involving the accused in the commission of the crime,
then requires to be acquitted from the charges as the
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a shadow of doubt.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
18. When we have analyzed the aforesaid aspect of the case and
even on re-appreciation of the entire set of evidence on record,
we are unable to take any different view than taken by the Trial
Court, inasmuch as, the prosecution miserably failed to bring
on record any direct evidence which proved the guilt of the
accused in the commission of the crime.
19. All these above factors would clearly suggest that there is
weakness and short-comings in the case of the prosecution and
the evidence led by the prosecution not inspired any confidence
at least to us, whereby we can upturn decision of the Trial
Court acquitting the respondents accused by giving them
benefit of doubt.
20. In view of the above referred flaw in the evidence of
prosecution and after going through the reasons assigned by
the Trial Court, we are in complete agreement with the reasons
and the view taken by the Trial Court whereby acquitted the
respondents - accused.
21. Considering these set of evidences on record and in light of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred
hereinabove, we are of the opinion that no error has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Godhra
in Sessions Case No.78 of 2000 (Trial Court) while acquitting
the respondents - accused.
22. This appeal found meritless, 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, be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NILESH
