Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Devendrasinh @ Devaji Keshaji Parmar on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 8 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd./-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DEVENDRASINH @ DEVAJI KESHAJI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3
BAILABLE WARRANT UN-SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
2,4
MR PIYUSH B TRIVEDI(12401) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MS RENU D CHAUDHARY(6065) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,3,4,5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section
413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the judgement
and order of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge (Main Court),
Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Sessions Case No. 92 of 2009 on 16-08-2010, whereby, the learned Trial
Court has acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 504, 506(2) and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).
1.1] By an order dated 18-09-2023, bailable warrants were
issued against all the respondents and as per the report of the learned
Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, the respondent No. 2 - Keshaji
Chhatrasinh Parmar expired on 13-11-2010 and the respondent No. 4 -
Shardaben Kanusinh Chauhan expired on 10-01-2023 and the copies of
their death certificates, have been sent along with the report of PSI,
Adalaj Police Station, Dehgam, District: Gandhinagar. In view of the
same, the appeal qua respondent No. 2 - Keshaji Chhatrasinh Parmar and
respondent No. 4 - Shardaben Kanusinh Chauhan has become
infructuous.
1.2] During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent No. 5
expired and hence the appeal qua the respondent No. 5 was abated by an
order dated 02.07.2025.
1.3] The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused"
as they stood in the rank and file 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:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
2.1] The accused No. 1 was married to Vaishali - the daughter of
the complainant Ambalal Gandhaji Vaghela. The accused No. 2 is the
father-in-law, accused No. 3 is mother-in-law, accused No. 4 is sister-in-
law and the accused No. 5 is brother-in-law of deceased Vaishali. The
accused, in collusion with each other, would mentally and physically
harass Vaishali - the daughter of the complainant Ambalal Gandhaji
Vaghela and would make illegal demands on her and the harassment was
to such an extent that Vaishali along with her daughter Pinal @ Pintu,
aged 2 years, fell into the Karai Canal on 3-9-2009 and committed
suicide. The complaint was filed by the complainant Ambalal Gandhaji
Vaghela at the Police Station, Adalaj under Sections 306, 498(A), 504,
506 (2) and 114 of the IPC, which was registered at Adalaj Police Station
I- C.R.No.190 of 2009 on 9-9-2009
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after
completion of investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against the
accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Gandhinagar and as the said offences against the accused were
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to
the Sessions Court, Gandhinagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessios Case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
No. 92 of 2009.
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. 11 was
framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were
recorded at Exh. 12 and Exh.16 respectively, wherein, the accused
denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the
prosecution was taken on record.
2.4] The prosecution produced nine oral and eight documentary
evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.42,
the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all
the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step
into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that
a false case has been filed against them. 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 judgment
and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
leveled 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 judgement 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 cross-examination,
nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case
has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondent and the
judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any
basis in the eyes of 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 advocate Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the appellant-
State and Ms. Renu Chaudhary for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Perused the
impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the
entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Aditya Jadeja has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record
of the case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is
contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has
not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. That the
complainant has supported the case of the prosecution, which is
corroborated by the deposition of the medical officer and the witnesses
have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The
complainant as well as the prosecution have fully proved the case beyond
reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor
contradictions. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal,
improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and
the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
6. Learned advocate Ms. Renu Chaudhary appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submits that the judgments and order has been
passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has
appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of
the appellant-State must be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it
would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the
case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4)
SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006
SC 831, 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". (emphasis supplied)
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 iTimes New Romann 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
8. 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.
9. 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
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."
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 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:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
"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.
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
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]
10. In light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence on
record of the case is appreciated and the prosecution has examined
Prosecution Witness No. 1 - Dr. Kalpesh Hiralal Parikh at Exhibit 18 and
the witness is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at Civil Hospital,
Gandhinagar on 3-9-2009 and he along with panel doctor, Dr.
D.F.Parmar conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased
Vaishaliben. The witness has produced the post-mortem note at Exhibit
19 and has stated that the as per column No.17, no injuries were found in
the external part of the body and the cause of death in their opinion was
asphyxia due to drowning. In the cross-examination, the witness has
admitted that there were no marks of injury on the dead body of the
deceased and rigor mortis was not present on the body and hence, it
could not be opined as to when the death had taken place. The witness
has also admitted that, if a person slips and falls into the water, death
could be caused by asphyxia.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
10.1] Prosecution Witness No. 2 -Ambalal Gandhaji Waghela
examined at Exhibit 26 is the father of the deceased Vaishali and the
complainant, who has stated that his daughter Vaishali @ Vershaben was
married to the accused No. 1 more than 7 years prior to the incident as
per the customes of the community. The accused would mentally and
physically harass Vaishali and had demanded an amount of Rs 50,000/-
from her. His daughter had telephoned him and informed him that they
were demanding for Rs 50,000/- and he had called his son-in-law and
daughter and had given an amount of Rs 20,000/- to his daughter. After
some time, the accused No. 1 and his daughter went to reside separately
but the disputes went on and once again the accused demanded an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as they wanted to complete their unconstructed
house. On 02-09-2009, he was at Nadiad and the aunty of the accused
No. 1 told him that Vaishali has left the house and was not at Dabhoda
and he had gone to the Ahmedabad City Police Commissioner and
Sabarmati Police Station and had given the information that his daughter
was missing. They were looking for his daughter and his son Jigar went
to find Vaishali at the Karai Canal and the workers told him that a dead
body was found at the Adalaj Canal. They went to the police station and
found that the dead body was of his daughter and the dead body of the
minor daughter was found from the Jaspur Canal. The witness has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
produced the complaint at Exhibit 27. In the cross examination by the
learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he was
informed by his son-in-law, i.e. the accused No. 1, that his daughter was
missing and he had given a complaint on 4-9-2009 at the Sabarmati
Police Station against the accused No. 1, accused No. 2 and one
Ranjitsingh. In the present complaint, Ranjitsinh Poonamsinh, who was
the mediator for the marriage of his daughter, has not been made an
accused and the application given to Sabarmati Police Station on 4-9-
2009, was given as per the advice of his advocate. The funeral rites of his
daughter and granddaughter were on 5-9-2009 and the witness has
admitted that the accused No. 3 was aged and the accused No. 2 was
more than 70 years old and the accused No. 4 was married 20 years ago.
The witness has also admitted that his daughter and the accused No. 1
would come often to his house and he too would go to Dabhoda. The
accused No. 5 was residing separately and he does not know when the
amount of Rs.50,000/- was demanded and when the amount of
Rs.20,000/- was given. His daughter did not have a mobile phone and he
would call on the mobile phone of the accused No. 1 and speak to his
daughter and he does not know in whose name cellphone No. 98257-
91452 and No. 97143-54839 are registered. The witness has admitted
that one Himmatsinh Parmar is a neighbour of his daughter at her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
matrimonial house and he does not know whether there was a tattoo
mark of "HP" on his daughter's forearm. The witness has admitted that
the photographs and love letters were destroyed and has refused to make
any clarification about the tattoo mark of "HP" found on his daughter's
forearm.
10.2] Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Jeevatben Ambalal Thakor
examined at Exhibit 28 is the mother of the deceased Vaishali and wife
of the complainant Ambalal Gandhaji Vaghela and has supported the
case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has admitted that the accused No. 4 was married
more than 20 years prior to the incident and her daughter would come to
her house often.
10.3] Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Jigarbhai Ambalal Vaghela
examined at Exhibit 29 is the brother of deceased Vaishali and the son of
the complainant and has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has admitted that the Deputy Superintendent of
Police had recorded a statement on 05-09-2009 and prior to the incident,
his sister Vaishali had resided at their place for 7 to 8 months.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
10.4] Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Kumarpal Ambalal Vaghela
examind at Exh. 30 is the elder brother of deceased Vaishali and son of
the complainant and he has supported the case of the prosecution and has
stated that the unfortunate incident occurred 20 days after the accused
took his sister to her matrimonial house.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has admitted that the funeral rites of his sister were
on 05-09-2009 and his father had filed a complaint at the Sabarmati
Police Station on 04-09-2009 against three persons i.e. the accused No.
1, accused No. 2 and Morvayi Ranjitsinh. The second complaint was a
typed complaint, in which, Ranjitsinh was not an accused and he could
not remember in which month or date the amount of Rs.50,000/- was
demanded for by the accused. He does not know where did his father get
the money from and the witness has admitted that there was a tattoo of
"HP" on his sister's hand. No complaint of ill treatment was filed by his
sister against the accused during her married life.
10.5] Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Jeetendrabhai Gandaji Waghela
examined at Exhibit 31 is the uncle of deceased Vaishaliben and the
younger brother of the complainant and has supported the case of the
prosecution.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
During the cross-examination by the learned adocate for the
accused, the witness has admitted that the friend of his elder brother was
an advocate and he had written the complaint that was given in the police
station. The witness has also admitted that the accused No. 5 was
residing separately from his niece.
10.6] Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Manjulaben Bikhabhai Solanki
examined at Exhibit 32 is the PSO of Adalaj Police Station and she has
registered the complaint. The witness has produced the extract of the
Station Diary at Exhibit 33. The witness has, during the cross-
examination, the witness has admitted that the complaint was a typed
complaint given on 9-9-2009, whereas the unfortunate incident had
occurred on 04-09-2009.
10.7] Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Hiralben Girishkumar Thakor
examined at Exhibit 34 is the sister of deceased Vaishali and she has
supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that on 01-
09-2009, her sister Vaishali had come to her house in the afternoon and
was weeping and told her that she was fed up as the accused were asking
for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from her father. She left and went to her
house at around 4 p.m. and between 10.30 p.m. and 11.00 p.m., the
accused No. 1 telephoned her to inquire from her as to whether Vaishali
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
had come to her house. When she refused, the accused No. 1 got angry
and hence she switched off the phone and on 4-9-2009 between 7 p.m.
and 7.30 p.m., her father telephoned her to inform her that a dead body
was found at a Adalaj and they were going to the Civil Hospital and the
dead body was identified as that of her sister Vaishali.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that she too is residing at Dabhoda and
the accused No. 4 was married at Labad and was residing there with her
two children. When her sister Vaishali came to her house on 1-9-2009,
she did not inform her father as Vaishali had told her not to inform her
father. Vaishali had returned to her matrimonial house about one week
prior to the incident and there is a police station at Dabhoda.
10.8] Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Mukeshbhai Jagdishchandra
Solanki examined at Exhibit 36 is the Investigating Officer, who has
narrated the entire procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
In the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused,
the witness has admitted that an Accidental Death was registered for the
incident, which was enquired into by P.S.I. Shri. Dabhi and he had
received the papers and in the papers of Accidental Death, no cognisable
offence was made out. The Accidental Death was registered at No. 55 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
2009 and in the enquiry of Accidental Death No. 55 of 2009, there was
no evidence that the in-laws of Vaishali were mentally or physically
harassing by her and demanding for any money from them. The
complainant had given his statement on 05-09-2009 and the dead body of
Vaishali was found on 03-09-2009 and the funeral rites were conducted
on 04-09-2009. The statement of the complainant Ambalal Gandabhai
Vaghela was recorded on 05-09-2009. In the inquest panchnama on the
dead body of deceased Vaishali, ornaments were found and from the
clothes on the dead body, two papers were found and in one paper,
"Nardipur Mobile No. 97143-54839" and in the other paper, "Tino
Mobile No. 98257-91452" was written. Both the papers were mentioned
in the inquest panchnama in the Accident Death No. 55 / 2009 and
during investigation, he did not investigate about these two numbers or
what was the relationship of the mobile numbers with deceased Vaishali.
The application was given to the Sabarmati Police Station on 4-9-2009
was a typed application complaint and the statement of the complainant
Ambalal Gandabai and Jigarbhai Ambalal was recorded on 5-9-2009 by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kalol Division. At the inquest
panchnama PSI Dabhi was present, but no application was given to PSI
Dabhi and the complainant did not come to the police station to file any
complaint prior to 9-9- 2009. The witness has also admitted that in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
application given on 4-9-2009 at Sabarmati Police Station, the
complainant had named Ranjitsinh Poonamsinh, who was the mediator
for the marriage of his daughter with the accused No. 1 and prior to this
incident, there was no complaint filed by the deceased or by her father
regarding any ill treatment given to her. In the post mortem note at
Exhibit 19, it is mentioned that a tattoo mark HP was found on the right
forearm, but no investigation regarding this tattoo mark was made by
him. The deceased Vaishali was residing at Dabhoda, but he has not
recorded the statements of any neighbours at Dabhoda.
11] On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, as per the evidence on record, the incident has occurred on
3-9-2009 or any time prior to 03-09-2009 when the dead body of
deceased Vaishali was found from the Karai Canal and the dead body of
her minor daughter Pinal @ Pintu was found from the Jaspur Cacal,
Vaishali went missing with her daughter on 1-9-2009 and as per the
panchnama produced at Exhibit 24, which is the panchnama, wherein the
complainant has identified the dead body of his daughter Vaishali on 5-9-
2009 between 8:00 hours to 8:30 hours and the panchnama has been
drawn by PSI, Adalaj Police Station. As per the complainant, the accused
had demanded for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and he had given
Rs.20,000/- to his daughter, but there is no iota of evidence regarding the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
date, month, place or time when the amount was demanded and given.
The complainant has admitted that the amount was given to his daughter
and there is no iota of evidence that the amount was given to the accused.
In the entire evidence, it has come on record that the complainant had
given an application on 4-9-2009 at the Adalaj Police Station but the
application has not been produced on record and Accidental Death No.
55 of 2009 was also registered, which was inquired into by PSI,
Shri.Dabhi but the documents Accidental Death No. 55 of 2009 have not
been produced on record. After identifying the dead body of his daughter
Vaishali on 5-5-2009, the complaint, the statement of the complainant
Ambalal Gandhaji Waghela and his son Jigar Ambalal Waghela were
recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police but no allegations of
any ill treatment was made by them. Thereafter, on 9-9- 2009, the
complaint has been filed and there is no explanation regarding the delay
in filing the complaint. The Investigating Officer has admitted that
during investigation, he did not inquire or record the statements of any
neighbours of deceased Vaishali and there is no evidence as to whether
there was in fact any ill treatment to the deceased by the accused.
Moreover, it has also emerged on record that as per the postmortem note
at Exhibit 19, a tattoo with HP mark was found on the right forearm of
the deceased and there is evidence that one Himmatsinh Parmar was the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
neighbour of deceased Vaishali and the complainant has himself admitted
that the photographs and love letters of his daughter Vaishali were
destroyed but there is no investigation in this direction by the
Investigating Officer. Moreover, it has also emerged on record that in the
inquest panchaama drawn in Accidental Death No. 55 of 2009, it was
found that ornaments were found on the dead body of deceased Vaishali
and two chits were found and in one chit, "Nardipur Mobile No. Mobile
No. 97143-54839" and in the other chit "Tino Mobile No. 98257-91452"
was written but the Investigating Officer has not done any investigation
with regard to the these cellphone numbers.
12] 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 the
learned Trial Court was completely justified in extending benefit of doubt
and acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against him. 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of extending benefit of doubt
and 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.
13] The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Sessions Judge (Main Court), Gandhinagar in Sessions Case
No. 92 of 2009 on 16-08-2010 is hereby confirmed.
14] Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to
the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd./-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
