Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Rohitji Javanji Gohil on 8 September, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/390/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 390 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ROHITJI JAVANJI GOHIL & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the Appellant(s) No. 1
JAY J JANI(9303) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 08/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] This is an Appeal filed by the State of Gujarat
challenging the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by
the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3,
Gandhinagar dated 15.02.2007 whereby the respondents -
accused have come to be acquitted for the charges punishable
under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as
also under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/390/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
[2.0] The prosecution case as unfolded from the papers
reveal that the daughter of the complainant Ranjanben was
married to accused no.1 on 13.02.2005. Accused no.2 is the
brother-in-law of the deceased - Ranjanben whereas accused
no.3 is the mother-in-law. After the marriage, deceased -
Ranjanben went to matrimonial house and stayed there for 15
days. As per the prosecution case, at the time of marriage, the
complainant had given sufficient dowry as per his ability. The
deceased - Ranjanben was staying in a joint family with her
husband. When deceased - Ranjanben was at her parental
home, on 18.08.2005, she came to know that her husband is
sick, and therefore, she went to her matrimonial home
alongwith her grandfather. Her grandfather also stayed there
for a night and came back. However, on 26.08.2005 an
untoward incident occurred where deceased - Ranjanben
consumed endosulfan poisonous drug, which is used to
sprinkle over the crop, and succumbed to death on the very
same day. Though, she was taken to the hospital, she had
died. The postmortem was performed over the dead body of
the deceased - Ranjanben. The complainant and his relatives
i.e. parental side of Ranjanben was informed about the
occurrence and all had come to the hospital as also to attend
the last rites, which took place at the house of the accused. As
per the case of the complainant, on that very day, i.e. on
26.08.2005, they went to the Police Station and complainant
gave information about the untoward incident, which was
recorded at Exh.10 as Accidental Death under Section 174 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 since at that time there
was no complaint or any allegation of any cruelty or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/390/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused and as
such she was happily staying with her in-laws. On the contrary
it is reflected that she appeared to be very sensitive and of
fierce nature, as claimed by the father. As revealed, when the
husband was sick, certain guests visited the house of accused
no.1 where, as per the customs, deceased - Ranjanben had not
put veil over her face, for which perhaps accused no.1 -
husband had scolded her, which she took it to the heart and
she might have committed suicide i.e. the case of the
complainant on the day of the incident i.e. 26.08.2005.
[2.1] However, on 19.10.2005, FIR has come to be filed
against the accused for the alleged offences aforesaid i.e.
nearly after more than 55 days of the incident and recording of
Accidental Death at the instance of the present complainant
alleging no cruelty or harassment meted out by the accused to
the deceased i.e. daughter of the complainant. However, as
reflected from the FIR, he came to know subsequently and
when he inquired, deceased - Ranjanben was meted out with
cruelty and taunt for household work as also bringing less
dowry. It is also alleged that accused no.1 had illicit relation
with some lady, and therefore also, she was beaten by accused
no.1. It is also alleged that for color TV and Motorcycle also
she was beaten. It is attempted to be explained in the FIR that
when earlier statements were given, since daughter had died,
complainant was in tension and he did not know about such
cruelty meted out to the deceased, which came to his
knowledge later on, and therefore, he filed the complaint.
[2.1] On complaint being filed, it was investigated and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/390/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
chargesheet has come to be filed. Since the case was
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Vide Exh.5,
charge came to be framed against the accused.
[2.2] To prove the case against the accused, the
prosecution examined total 7 witnesses, out of which 4
witnesses are the family members, one is Doctor, who
performed postmortem over the dead body and two are the
Police Witnesses. Over and above that, nearly 10 documents
were produced and proved on record by the prosecution.
[3.0] Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, took me to the impugned judgment and order as
also the evidence and the documents produced and proved by
the prosecution. According to him, merely because only
interested witnesses are examined and no independent
witnesses are examined before the Court, the case of the
prosecution cannot be thrown away as for such nature of
offence, no independent witnesses would be available. He has
further submitted that the late filing of the complaint is very
well explained by the first informant in the FIR, and therefore,
the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded on the ground
of late filing of the FIR. He has further submitted that evidence
of the father, mother, grandfather and brother of the
deceased is consistent, and therefore, the judgment and order
of acquittal recorded by the learned Judge is erroneous and is
required to be quashed and set aside.
[4.0] As against that, Mr. Jay Jani, learned advocate for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/390/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
the respondents - accused, submitted that the learned Judge
has appreciated the evidence brought on record in its true
perspective and in detail. Examining the case from each and
every angle, complainant himself has registered Accidental
Death showing no suspicion over any of the accused for any of
the offence. At the same time, in the statements recorded
pursuant to Accidental Death Case, no any complaint of any ill
treatment or cruelty meted out on the deceased was ever
spoken of. On the contrary, as per the case of the first
informant himself in the Accidental Death Case, in a statement
recorded in Accidental Death Case, she was happy in her
matrimonial home, and therefore, there was no complaint of
any cruelty or anything against any of the accused. As such,
according to him, she is of very fierce nature and very
sensitive. As before elderly persons of the community, she did
not put on the veil over her face, her husband had scolded her
and because of that, she might have took it to her heart and
committed suicide, and therefore, he has submitted that filing
of FIR, that too, attempting to explain the delay of 55 days
saying that when he inquired from the matrimonial home of
the deceased, he came to know about the demand of dowry as
also cruelty meted out to the deceased, and therefore, he has
submitted that the learned Judge has recorded good reasons
for discarding the evidence of the witnesses being not reliable
and independent so as to convict the accused for the offences
alleged against them.
[5.0] At the same time, Mr. Jay Jani, learned advocate for
the respondent - accused, submitted that even if two views are
possible, if the appellate Court is to take the view, which is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/390/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
favourable to the accused and when innocence of the accused
is further strengthened by the acquittal recorded, this Court
may not interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal
recorded by the learned Judge.
[6.0] Having heard the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor as also learned advocate for the respondents -
accused, let me reappreciate the evidence, if at all it calls for
any interference or not. The prosecution examined first
informant - Divansinh Pratapsinh Jhala at Exh.9, who is the
father of the deceased - Ranjanben.
[6.1] Considering the FIR, Exh.11 demand of dowry,
taunting the deceased and beating her is concerned, it came
to the knowledge of first informant when he went to her
matrimonial home and inquired about the same. However,
from the matrimonial home from whom he came to know
about the same is not stated or even explained either in the
FIR or in his deposition.
[6.2] In paragraph 10 of the judgment, learned Judge has
considered the evidence of the first informant that after
staying for 15 days at her matrimonial home she came back to
her parental home. However, at that time also, she did not
state anything about any cruelty or anything. He pleaded
ignorance that if it has been informed to her mother, he is not
knowing it. It is further stated in his deposition that thereafter
accused no.2 took her to the matrimonial home and she stayed
there for 15 days. Thus, she was commuting between parental
home and matrimonial home frequently. Despite that, first
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/390/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
informant had no such conversation with the deceased and she
had also not said anything to him. Reappreciating the initial
evidence stated in the examination-in-chief, the first informant
has not stated that any of the accused had meted out the
deceased with cruelty or any dowry or accused no.1 is having
any illicit relation with anyone and because of that, she is
being subjected to cruelty. As such, he claimed that he came
to know that her daughter was meted out with physical and
mental cruelty. Thus, for about 55 days, first informant had
not received any information about any cruelty being meted
out by any of the accused and it has not been brought on
record. Because of such evidence in examination-in-chief, first
informant was declared hostile and thereafter in cross
examination conducted by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, conveniently, the first informant gave certain
admissions. However, he admitted that he has not so stated
in his FIR that any of the accused committed any mental or
physical cruelty or demanded any dowry or anything.
However, he has attempted to explain that since his daughter
has died and he was in tension and it has come to his
knowledge subsequently, it is not stated in the FIR. Over and
above that, it has come to his knowledge from his wife has also
not come in the evidence. However, in the cross examination
conducted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he
claimed that from her in-laws there was cruelty meted out to
her was stated by her to him. Therefore, in the same evidence,
first informant is trying to give contradictory evidence. Over
and above that, for such cruelty being meted out, no such fact
is admitted to have been stated in the FIR, Exh.11. Such an
explanation offered for delayed FIR and delayed allegation,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/390/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
first informant has failed to give any reasonable and
satisfactory explanation, and therefore, the learned Judge has
rightly discarded the evidence of the complainant.
[6.3] Coming to the evidence of Chandrikaben Divanji
Jhala, wife of the first informant and mother of the deceased,
she has not clearly stated in her evidence that when she was
coming to parental home, she was saying anything about her
married life. However, she was complaining that her mother-
in-law is very strict. Still, however, as recorded by the learned
Judge from the evidence, no such facts is stated in her police
statement but it is stated before the Court for the first time.
Over and above that, the said assertion is not being supported
even by the first informant.
[6.4] Furthermore, the mother of the deceased in her
evidence stated that her daughter informed that her husband
is asking money and informed that she has brought less dowry.
However, it is nothing but an exaggeration, as such, no such
facts has been stated in her police statement. Not only that,
no such facts is ever stated by the father of the deceased in
his deposition. If at all the deceased had informed that either
to the mother or in presence of father and mother, surely it
would have been reflected in the FIR, Exh 11 or even in the
Accidental Death Case registered by the father. If not in the
Accidental Death Case registered, statements recorded
pursuant thereto, it would have been so stated in those
statements. For that also, there is no explanation offered and
it has been so stated for the first time before the Court. She
further stated in her evidence that her daughter, when came to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/390/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
parental home after about a month, at that time, she informed
about cruelty meted out to her, which was made known to the
father of the deceased. However, the said factum is not
supported either by the FIR filed by the father of the deceased
nor in his deposition. Over and above that, the said fact is not
stated in her police statement and stated for the first time
before the Court.
[6.5] She has further stated in her deposition that on
Rakshabandhan when she came to her house, her husband
had demanded colour TV to which she offered TV, which was in
the house as for color TV there is no provision with them. Still,
however, such fact is not supported either by the evidence of
the father, brother or grandfather of the deceased. Not only
that, the said fact is also not stated in her police statement.
The father of the deceased has also not so stated in his
deposition. More importantly, statement recorded pursuant to
Accidental Death Case registered by the father of the
deceased, it was clearly mentioned that their daughter had no
any cruelty or harassment meted out by any of the accused
and as such, she was staying with her in-laws very happily. On
the contrary, it reflected that her daughter was of very
sensitive and fierce nature. Out of emotion, she might have
took such step, and therefore, learned Judge has concluded
that the deposition of the witnesses are full of exaggeration
and the fact stated before the Court were never stated in their
police statement, and therefore, their evidence appears to be
not reliable. Not only that, in between even interested and
related witnesses, there is no consistency of evidence.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/390/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
[6.6] Coming to the deposition of Prosecution Witness
no.3 - Pratpsinh Abhuji Jhala, who is grandfather of the
deceased in his deposition stated that after she went to her
matrimonial home after about a week she was brought to her
parental home and there she stayed about two months. He
has confirmed that he had gone to drop granddaughter at her
matrimonial home as a call was received that the husband of
the deceased was sick and he stayed there for a night.
However, grandfather of the deceased in his evidence has not
stated anything about any cruelty either mental or physical
meted out to the deceased, any demand for dowry or accused
no.1 having illicit relation with any lady. At the same time,
deceased had never informed him about any of the cruelty
meted out to her on the contrary cause of the death of the
granddaughter has not come to be known to him till date.
Therefore, the prosecution had declared the grandfather of the
deceased hostile to the prosecution case.
[6.7] Now coming to the next witness, Dharmendra
Divansinh Jhala, who happens to be the real brother of the
deceased in his deposition he has stated that after the
marriage deceased stayed in her matrimonial home for 8 to 15
days and came back to the parental home and at that time for
such cruelty, she informed his mother about the same. At the
same time, accused had demanded Colour TV and Motrocyle
and for that money was being demanded and because of that
reason, she is meted out with cruelty was also stated.
However, such factum and time period is neither stated by
mother or father of the deceased. On the contrary, as per
their say, for such cruelty meted out to her, they came to know
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/390/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
when they went to her matrimonial home and inquired about
the same. Neither of them in their deposition have ever stated
that their daughter had so stated about cruelty to her, and
therefore, evidence of the brother of the deceased appears to
be full of exaggeration. At the same time, no such fact is
stated by him in his police statement. As such, he has gone to
the extent that the accused have administered poisonous drug
to his deceased sister, which is contrary to even the
prosecution evidence, and therefore, his deposition appears to
be contrary to the depositions of all other witnesses referred to
hereinabove. Not only that, administering poison to his sister
came to his knowledge from the public. However, he is unable
to give the name of any one of them. In the said prosecution,
there are several statements recorded of the village people but
they have not stated anything about any cruelty meted out to
the deceased. Such exaggerated version stated before the
Court by the witness Dharmendrasinh Divansinh Jhala is not
stated in his police statement. It has been so stated before
the Court for the first time. As such, for the suicide committed
by the deceased is concerned, which is attempted to be
proved by the evidence of the Doctor, is not disputed, and
therefore, no further discussion is required. However, whether
that suicide is abetted by the accused or not is the question,
which is very well answered by the learned Judge, keeping in
mind all the evidence recorded before the Court and the
evidence produced. Not only that the learned Judge has
considered the precedents cited at the bar by both the parties
by the High Court and the Supreme Court for appreciation of
evidence, which on reappreciation of it appears to be perfectly
justified.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/390/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
[6.8] On reappreciation of evidence, it appears that the
learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence in its true
perspective and there appears no evidence about any
abetment to the suicide of the deceased. As such, abetment
can be by intentional aiding, which is lacking in this case.
There is no aiding at all apart from any intention to the so
called suicide.
[6.9] While exercising appellate powers and on
reappreciation of evidence, there is no other view possible
than the view taken by the learned Judge, and therefore, I am
unable to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order
of acquittal passed by the learned Judge. Hence, this Appeal
being without any merit it is hereby dismissed. Record and
Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.)
siji
