Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jahagir Sardarbhai Pathan on 3 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 783 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JAHAGIR SARDARBHAI PATHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIRAL V DAVE(3846) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 03/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Rajkot
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Sessions Case No. 151/2008 on 31.03.2011, whereby, the
learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the
offence punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" in the rank and file 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 no. 1 was married to Shabanaben - the
daughter of the complainant - Bashirbhai Sulemanbhai
Sama. The accused no. 2 is the father-in-law, accused no. 3
- the mother-in-law and accused no. 4 - the brother-in-law
of deceased Shabanaben and on 24.09.2008 at around
08.30 pm when the complainant was going to break his fast,
his brother-in-law Zakir telephoned him and told him that
Shabana had consumed poison and was in the hospital
under treatment. The complainant went to the hospital and
met his daughter Shabana and she told him that she had
consumed the tablets used to preserve wheat as she was fed
up of the mental and physical harassment by the accused
and as she could not bear it any longer, she had taken the
tablets. She expired during treatment and the complainant
filed the complaint at the Rajkot City Gandhigram Police
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
Station under Section 306, 498A, 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, which came to be registered at Gandhigram
Police Station I - C.R. No. 452 of 2008.
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 Court of the 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. 151/2008
2.3 The accused were 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. 7 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at
Exhs. 8, 9, 10 and 11 wherein, the accused denied the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the
prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and produced
19 documentary evidences on record in support of their
case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed
the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
was recorded. After the arguments of the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been
proved beyond reasonable doubts 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
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Viral Dave for the
respondents. 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 Mr. Rohan Shah 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
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:
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".
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
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
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
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:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
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 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:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
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 PW1 -
Basirbhai Sulemanbhai examined at Exh. 26 is the
complainant and father of deceased Shabana who has
narrated the facts as stated in his complaint which is
produced at Exh. 27. The complainant has stated that the
accused would ill treat his daughter and earlier too she had
consumed some poison and was admitted in the hospital
but at that time he did not file any complaint and with the
mediation of Zakirbhai, he had sent his daughter to her
matrimonial home but the harassment had continued. His
daughter was sent to her matrimonial home about 20 to 25
days prior to the unfortunate incident which had occurred
on 24.09.2008. His daughter was taken to Nilkant Hospital
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
and she had informed him that she had taken the step due
to the harassment by the accused. The witness has
produced the complaint at Exh. 27 and the application for
maintenance filed by his daughter under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Court of the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot at Exh. 28. During
the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has admitted that as per the
document produced at Exh. 28, the application for
maintenance was filed on 21.02.2008 and it was mentioned
that she was at her paternal home for about six months
and the witness has admitted that his daughter was at his
house from August 2007. The witness has also admitted
that the accused no. 1 had taken his daughter to the
hospital and earlier too his daughter had consumed some
poisonous substance. When he went to the hospital, the
police had arrived and had recorded the statement of her
husband and his wife as also his statement. Even earlier
when his daughter had consumed poison, his statement
was recorded and in the document produced at Exh. 28,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
there were no allegations against the accused nos. 2, 3 and
4. The witness has also admitted that his son was arrested
in a PASA case.
9.1 PW2 - Irfanbhai Siddikbhai Vohra examined at Exh.
34 is the panch witness of the inquest panchnama which is
produced at Exh. 35. The witness has supported the case of
the prosecution and during the cross examination, he has
stated that he had gone to inquire about the health of the
deceased and he had seen the dead body from a distance of
about one to two feet. The police were writing the
panchnama and he does not know what was written in the
panchnama.
9.2 PW3 - Azimbhai Bashirbhai Sama examined at Exh.
36 is the brother of the deceased and son of the
complainant and he has supported the case of the
prosecution.
9.3 PW4 - Kamleshbhai Vinubhai examined at Exh. 39 is
the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence
which is produced at Exh. 40. The witness has not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
supported the case of the prosecution and has been
declared hostile.
9.4 PW5 - Dr. Maheshbhai Himmatlal Pansura examined
at Exh. 41 examined at Exh. 41 is the Medical Officer who
has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of
deceased Shabanaben Jahangirbhai and has stated that on
25.09.2008 while he was on duty at Civil Hospital, Rajkot,
the dead body of Shabanaben Jahangir Pathan was brought
for postmortem and he along with panel doctor - Dr. J. K.
Nathwani had done the postmortem on 25.09.2008 between
06.30 am to 07.10 am. The body was an identified body and
there were no marks of injury found on the body. The
viscera was preserved and the probable cause of death was
cardio-respiratory failure and after the report of the viscera,
the final cause of death was given as "Cardio-respiratory
failure due to aluminum phosphide poisoning". The witness
has produced the postmortem note at Exh. 42 and the final
cause of death certificate at Exh. 44. During the cross
examination, the witness has stated that in the document
produced at Exh. 48, the description of the viscera is not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
stated and there was no seal in the document at Exh. 50.
There were no external marks of injury on the body and on
the original postmortem note, there were no marks of blood
on the postmortem note. The police report sent along with
the dead body for postmortem is produced at Exh. 45 and
the letter of Gandhigram Police Station produced at Exh.
9.5 PW6 - Dr. Tushar Rameshchandra Shah examined at
Exh. 51 is the Medical Officer who has stated that he has
his hospital, Neelkanth General Hospital on 80 feet road
and on 24.09.2008 at around 08.15 pm, Shabanaben was
brought by her husband Jahangirbhai Pathan and her
father Bashirbhai Sama for treatment. The witness has
produced the admission form filled up by her father at Exh.
53 and the form filled up by the husband at Exh. 54. The
witness has produced the intimation given to the Police
Inspector, Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot informing
them that Shabanaben Jahangirbhai Pathan has expired
on 24.09.2008 at around 23.30 hours at Exh. 55 and the
letter addressed to the CMO Civil Hospital, Rajkot at Exh.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
56. The case papers are produced at Exh. 57. During the
cross-examination, the witness has admitted that in the
history in the document produced at Exh. 57, it is
mentioned that tablets to be put in wheat have been
consumed and has admitted that there are a number of
corrections but they have not been initialed. The witness
has stated that as per the document produced at Exh. 57,
the patient was drowsy and could follow commands but
could not have a conversation for five to seven minutes
continuously. As per the history, the patient had consumed
tablets to be placed in the wheat and could only speak that
much. The witness has also admitted that as per the police
yadi dated 25.07.2007, the same patient was treated and
Head Constable - Jilubhai Basia had come to the hospital
and had prepared the yadi stating that the patient had
stomach pain and had consumed tablets to be placed in the
wheat and was admitted for treatment in Room No. 303.
9.6 PW7 - Mumtazben Bashirbhai examined at Exh. 61 is
the mother of deceased Shabanaben and has fully
supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
examination, the witness has admitted that her son had
phoned from Ajmer Sharif and at that time, her husband
had gone to the Dargah of Turki Bapu to break his fast and
she was at her house. Her statement was recorded by the
police after the funeral rites of her daughter and the
statement of the others were also recorded at that time. She
does not know exactly at what time she had returned from
the funeral of her daughter and she cannot recollect as to
whether she had narrated in her police statement the
conversation that she had with her daughter at the
hospital.
9.7 PW8 - Apyez Jahangirbhai examined at Exh. 62 is the
son of the deceased Shabanaben and the accused no. 1 and
he has stated that he was residing with his grandfather.
The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and
during the cross-examination, he has stated that his
statement was recorded by the police at the house of his
grandfather and he was staying with his grandfather from
one month before the incident.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
9.8 PW9 - Zakirbhai Adambhai Dal examined at Exh. 64
is the uncle of the deceased Shabanaben and he has stated
that he was at Ajmer at the time of the incident and the
accused no. 1 had telephoned him and informed him that
Shabana had consumed some medicine and he had
informed his brother-in-law Bashirbhai about the same. He
had come to Rajkot on the next morning and his brother-in-
law Bashirbhai had told him that these people had forcibly
given his daughter medicine. The witness has not
supported the case of the prosecution and has been
declared hostile and cross-examined at length by the
learned APP. During the cross-examination, the witness has
stated that Mumtazben was not his real sister and his niece
Guddi was married to Wasim - the son of Mumtazben.
Guddi was an adopted daughter and he had good relations
with the complainant Bashirbhai. The witness has also
admitted that he had spoken to Bashirbhai on the
telephone from Ajmer and besides that no other
conversation taken place and he had never visited the
house of the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
9.9 PW10 - Jilubhai Ebhalbhai Basiya examined at Exh.
65 is the PSO who has recorded the complaint.
9.10 PW11 - Mahendrabhai Jangbahadur Punn examined
at Exh. 71 has stated that he was on duty as the In-way
ASI at Gandhigram Police Station on 24.09.2008 and at
around 20.40 hours, he received information from Nilkant
Hospital that Shabanaben Jahangirbhai had a dispute at
her house about dowry and all the family members had got
together and had forcibly made her consume some
medicine and the Janva Jog was registered at 656 of 2008.
He had gone to the Nilkant Hospital and inquired from
Shabanaben but she could not reply as she was
unconscious and he had given a report to the doctor to
inform him when she would regain consciousness. He had
given a report to the Executive Magistrate for recording the
dying declaration of Shabanaben but as Shabanaben was
unconscious, the dying declaration could not be recorded.
On 25.09.2008 at around 00.15 hours, information was
received from Nilkant Hospital that Shabanaben had
expired during treatment and hence, he had sent a report
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
to the Executive Magistrate for preparing the inquest
panchnama and after the inquest panchnama was drawn
the dead body was handed over to her family. The
complainant Bashirbhai Sulemanbhai had thereafter given
the complaint which was recorded and registered. During
the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused the witness has admitted that it was a visitation
offence and he had initially investigated the same. In the
entry which is produced at Exh. 69, it was mentioned that
all the family members had got together and had made
Shabanaben consume some medicine and the complaint
was not recorded by any Superior Officer or the
Superintendent of Police. The extract of Entry No. 656 of
2008 was not produced on record.
9.11 PW12 - Devshibhai Laxmanbhai Vaja examined at
Exh. 73 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in
detail the procedure undertaken by him during
investigation. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he did
not visit the hospital at the time of the postmortem of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
dead body of the deceased and he had prepared the
panchnama of the place of offence as well as the arrest
panchnama. The dying declaration could not be recorded
and on inquiring from the complainant, he had stated that
Shabanaben was unconscious and no conversation had
taken place with her. Even as per the Medical Officer, the
deceased could not have any conversation and in the
application for maintenance filed under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no allegations were made
against the accused nos. 2, 3 and 4. The witnesses have
stated that the sons of the complainant Azim and Bashir
were involved in criminal offences and were also arrested
under the PASA and in the statement of the complainant
recorded on 25.07.2007, there were no allegations against
ill treatment by any of the accused. The witness has
produced the panchnama of the place of offence at Exh. 74
and the arrest panchnama at Exh. 75.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it is on record that the deceased Shabanaben
had earlier taken medicine and she had stated that she had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
taken the medicine by mistake. The complaint has been
filed by the complainant Bashirbhai Sulemanbhai Sama
which is produced at Exh. 27 and he has also produced the
application filed by Shabanaben for maintenance under
Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at Exh. 28.
As per the say of the complainant, he had gone to the
hospital and spoke to his daughter and she had told him
about the harassment by the accused and that she was so
fed up of the harassment that she had consumed the
medicine but in the evidence it has also it has emerged that
PW11 - Mahendrabhai Jangbahadur Punn had immediately
gone to the hospital and he had found that Shabanaben
was unconscious and she could not speak and he could not
record her statement and thereafter he had sent a report for
recording the dying declaration by the Executive Magistrate
but as Shabanaben was unconscious the dying declaration
could not be recorded. PW6 - Dr. Tushar Rameshchandra
Shah has also admitted that when Shabanaben was
brought for treatment, she was drowsy and she could only
state that she had consumed the medicine to be placed in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
the wheat and could not have a conversation for five to
seven minutes. PW12 - Devshibhai Laxmanbhai Vaja - the
Investigating Officer has also admitted that during
investigation it was found that the dying declaration could
not be recorded as Shabanaben was unconscious and the
say of the complainant that he had gone to the hospital and
his daughter had told him that she had consumed the
medicine because of the harassment by the accused, is not
proved. As per the evidence on record earlier when the
medicine was taken, it was stated that the medicine was
taken by mistake and in the document produced at Exh.
28, there are no allegations made against the accused nos.
2, 3 and 4.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/783/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
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
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, Fast
Track Court No. 4, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 151/2008
on 31.03.2011, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
