Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajubhai Khegarbhai Desai - Rabari on 3 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1122 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJUBHAI KHEGARBHAI DESAI - RABARI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 03/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH
ROY)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 29.11.2012 passed in
Special (Atrocity) Case No.17 of 2011 on the file of the learned
Additional District Judge, Gandhinagar, whereby the respondent, who is
the sole accused in the said case was acquitted of the charges punishable
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC")
and under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act").
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
2. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may briefly be stated as
follows:-
2.1 The deceased is the younger son of PW-3, who is the de-facto
complainant in this case. The deceased borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/-
from the accused for the purpose of purchasing a motorbike. Thereafter,
he failed to repay the said borrowed amount to the accused. The accused
insisted and demanded him to repay the borrowed amount. Therefore,
unable to bear the pressure and tension, that the deceased has consumed
poison on the intervening night of 29/30.03.2010 and died. On the
information received that he was lying on a road, PW-3, who is his father
and other family members reached the said place and they admitted him
in the hospital. While undergoing treatment, on the requisition given by
the doctor, the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded. He stated
in the dying declaration that unable to bear the pressure and tension
relating to repayment of the borrowed amount that the has decided to put
an end to his life. He has also stated that earlier the accused asked him
that he has to put an end to his life, if he fails to repay the borrowed
amount. Thereafter, the deceased died while undergoing treatment in the
hospital.
2.2 On the report lodged by PW-3, who is his father, a case under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
Section 306 of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(5) of the Atrocities Act
was registered against the accused. The case was investigated. After
holding inquest over the dead body of the deceased, autopsy was held
over his dead body. The doctor opined that he died of consuming pest
control chemical. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
laid against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
2.3 After accused made his appearance in the trial court, charges under
Section 306 of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(5) of the Atrocities Act
were framed against the accused. He denied the said charges and claimed
to be tried.
2.4 In the trial that took place, PW-1 to PW-8 witnesses were
examined and 22 exhibits were marked to substantiate the case of the
prosecution against the accused.
2.5 At the conclusion of the trial, after considering evidence on record
and on appreciation of the same, the trial court found the accused not
guilty for any of the aforesaid charges framed against him and acquitted
the accused by the impugned judgment.
2.6 Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the instant appeal
challenging the legal validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
3. When appeal came up for hearing, we have heard learned APP
Mr.Tirthraj Pandya for the State. Despite service of notice on respondent,
he did not appear before the Court. In spite of affording reasonable
opportunity, he did not turn up for hearing. Therefore, as it is an old
appeal of the year 2013, which is listed on our board under the caption
"final hearing of critically old matters of 11 to 20 years", we are not
inclined to further adjourn the appeal. Therefore, we have decided to
dispose of the appeal on merits on the basis of the material available on
record.
4. We have carefully perused the evidence and the material available
on record along with the appeal grounds.
5. At the very outset, it is apposite to note that in order to prove an
offence of abetment to commit suicide punishable under Section 306 of
the IPC, the basic ingredients contemplated under Section 107 of the IPC
are to be proved. As per Section 107 of the IPC, there must be intentional
instigation given by the accused to the deceased to commit suicide or he
must aid him in committing the suicide. In the instant case, it is not at all
the case of the prosecution that the accused has aided him in any way to
the deceased to commit suicide. As regards the intentional instigation is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
concerned, there is nothing to indicate from the evidence on record that
the accused has intentionally instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
The mere fact that he demanded the deceased to repay the amount
borrowed from him and unable to bear the said pressure and tension that
the deceased committed suicide being sensitive by itself will not
constitute any offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. The
accused cannot be held responsible for the extreme decision taken by the
deceased to end his life by committing a suicide as he could not repay the
borrowed amount. It is significant to note here that even in the dying
declaration of the deceased, he has clearly and unequivocally stated that
unable to bear the pressure and tension relating to repayment of the
borrowed amount that he has decided to put an end to his life. Therefore,
it is evident that he has taken decision to put an end to his life according
to his own free volition as he is unable to bear the tension and pressure as
he is unable to repay the borrowed amount. Even though it is stated in
dying declaration that earlier the accused stated over phone in their
discussion that if he is unable to repay the borrowed amount that he has to
put an end to his life, it is not made clear when the said words are uttered
by the accused. The time gap between uttering the said words and the
date of committing suicide is not made clear so as to connect the said
discussion to the decision taken by the accused to commit suicide. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
nexus between or the proximity of time between uttering the said words
and the date of suicide is not clearly established and proved to hold that
because of uttering the said words that the deceased committed suicide. In
fact, the deceased did not state in specific terms in his dying declaration
that as the accused uttered the said words over phone that he has taken a
decision to put an end to his life. On the other hand, he has stated in his
dying declaration that unable to bear the pressure and tension as he could
not repay the borrowed amount that he has taken a decision to put an end
to his life. Therefore, it cannot be said under any stretch of reasoning that
the accused intentionally instigated the deceased to commit the suicide
and that the deceased committed suicide because of any such intentional
instigation given by the accused. Therefore, offence under Section 306 of
the IPC, from the facts and circumstances of the case, is not made out.
The facts of the case do not constitute any offence punishable under
Section 306 of the IPC. We do not find any evidence on record, which
proves commission of the offence under Section 3(2)(5) of the Atrocities
Act.
6. The trial court after considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same,
arrived at a right conclusion and recorded a finding of acquittal in favour
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1122/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
of the accused. We completely concur with the said findings recorded by
the trial court. The judgment of acquittal of the trial court is based on
proper appreciation of evidence on record. It is not based on improper
appreciation of evidence or recording a perverse findings of fact. Upon
considering evidence on record and on reappraisal of the same and also
after considering the legal position relating to the constitution of the
offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC as discussed supra, we
also do not find any valid legal ground to hold that the accused guilty of
committing any such offences for the charges levelled against him.
Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal of the trial court is
perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference in this
appeal. So, the appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.
7. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the
acquittal of the trial court. The bail bonds of the respondent, if any, shall
stand discharged. Record and Proceedings and also, the paper book be
sent back to the concerned trial court.
Sd/-
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
Sd/-
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ABHISHEK/92
