[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jashwantsinh Khumansinh Chauhan on 16 January, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 577 of 1997
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JASHWANTSINH KHUMANSINH CHAUHAN
==========================================
Appearance:
MR ROHAN RAVAL APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 16/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)
1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgment and order dated 31.03.1997 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (hereinafter
be referred to as "the trial Court") in Sessions Case No.89 of 1995,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original accused
(respondent herein) for the offences punishable under Sections 302
and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as "the
IPC") and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A
and 304B of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years under Section 304B of the IPC and to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month. The sentences had been ordered to run
concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that the
complainant Bhimaji Vajaji Kharadi whose younger daughter -
Bhuriben got married with respondent before three years of the
incident and Bhuriben frequently came to her parental house and
complained that accused was asking her that why the buffalo was not
given in Kanyadan due to which she was frequently beaten by the
accused. It is the case of the prosecution that on account of the said
reason, Bhuriben came to her parental house for three to four times
and after persuading her, the father-in-law had taken back Bhuriben
to the matrimonial home. It is also the case of the prosecution that
before one month of the incident, Bhuriben came to her parental
home and told that the accused had illicit relation with one lady and
they both had run away and due to opposition, the accused had
beaten Bhuriben and therefore she went to her parental home and,
thereafter after four days she was brought back to the matrimonial
home. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 11.02.1995,
one Lalji Ditaji came to the house of complainant and told him that
the quarrel took place between Bhuriben and accused and he slapped
Bhuriben due to which she went away. It is the case of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
prosecution that the complainant and other persons of the family and
the village had gathered and they all inquired about Bhuriben and
then they went to the house of the accused where they came to know
that the clothes of Bhuriben were found in burning condition in the
house. The complainant came to know from one Jumaji Martaji that
deadbody of Bhuriben was lying in the Well of Village: Padalai.
Accordingly, the FIR being C.R.No.116/1996 was registered before the
Dahod Town Police Station by the complainant inter alia contending
that his sister namely Bhuriben got married with the accused before
about three years and as per their customary rites, they have given
dowry and during the wedlock, Bhuriben delivered one girl child and
after the birth of the girl child, the accused demanded buffalo for the
purpose of feeding the daughter and on account of the same, time
and again the accused was given mental and physical torture to the
deceased and, therefore, the quarrel had taken place between
deceased and accused. It was also alleged in the FIR that on
10.02.1995 at about 11.45 p.m. at Village: Padlai, the respondent had
beaten the deceased and, thereafter, she left the house and on fourth
day i.e. on the day of lodging the FIR, the deadbody of the deceased
was found from the well of Village: Padlai and on the basis of the
same, the FIR came to be lodged. It was further alleged in the FIR that
after igniting her by the accused, the deadbody was thrown in the
well to dispose of the evidence.
2.1 Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, the police started investigation,
prepared inquest panchnama and prepared panchnama of the scene
of offence, recorded the statements of various witnesses and
collected the evidence in the nature of postmortem note and after
preparing arrest panchnama, arrested the accused and after
completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
police has filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court
of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has committed the
case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of
Sessions wherein it has been registered as Sessions Case No.89 of
1995.
2.2 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial
Court vide Exhibit 5 for the aforesaid offences against the accused.
On being explained it to him, the accused has denied having
committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge
and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Himmatnagar.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
P.W. No. Name of Witnesses Exhibit
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the
following documentary evidence.
Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit
1 Yadi wrote to Vijaynagar Police Station for 12
conducting postmortem of the dead body.
4 Panchnama of the well where the dead body was 21
found
jewellery on the dead body submitted by P.S.O. to
the Investigating Officer
6 Panchnama of accused's physical condition 26
7 Panchnama of the scene of offence shown by the 27
accused
8 Panchnama of the scene of offence shown by the 28
complainant
9 Copy of the complaint given by Bhimaji Vajaji 33
10 Copy of dispatch note sent by C.P.I., Ider to FSL 35
5. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been
recorded wherein he denied of having committed any offences and
have stated that he is innocent.
6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302
and 201 of the IPC and convicted for the offencs punishable under
Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred
this Appeal. This Court on 20.11.1997 admitted the appeal and issued
bailable warrant to the respondent in sum of Rs.5,000/-.
8. Heard Mr.Rohan Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the appellant - State of Gujarat and Mr.P. V. Patadia,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent - accused at length.
9. Mr.Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant
- State of Gujarat has contended the same facts which are narrated in
the memo of appeal and has contended that the trial Court has
committed an error of facts and law in passing the impugned
judgment and order. He has submitted that the trial Court has failed
to appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective while
passing the judgment and order of acquittal so far as the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC is concerned. He
has also submitted that so far as the offence under Sections 304B and
498A of the IPC is concerned, the trial Court has believed the case of
the prosecution and convicted the accused for the said offences,
however, at the same time, the trial Court has disbelieved the case
against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 and
201 of the IPC. Mr.Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
submitted that the deceased was ill-treated and given mental and
physical cruelty on account of the dowry and the trial Court has
believed the charge under Section 498A of the IPC since the death
occurred during the period of seven years of marriage, however, the
trial Court has not believed the case against the accused under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
Section 302 of the IPC despite the fact of unnatural death of the
deceased and accused was the only person who was present in the
house and due to the dispute between the husband and wife, the
accused had ignited her and, thereafter, disposed of the evidence and
thrown the deadbody in the well, for which evidence to that effect was
produced before the trial Court, but the same has not been
considered by the Court below.
9.1 Mr.Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted
that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal may be quashed
and set aside and the trial Court has convicted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of the IPC is lesser
and, therefore, the same may be modified to the extent. He has
submitted that the reasons given by the trial Court are unjust, illegal
and improper to the facts of the prosecution case and, therefore, the
appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment and order of
acquittal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. Per contra, Mr.Patadiya, learned counsel for the respondent -
accused has opposed the appeal and supported the finding recorded
by the trial Court and has contended that the prosecution has failed to
establish the case for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the
IPC as there was no eye witness to the incident in question and all
near relatives of the deceased have not supported the case of the
prosecution. He has submitted that on the basis of the conjuncture
and surmises, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. He has
submitted that the accused has served out the sentence for more
than 4 years and 6 months and thereafter, after considering the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
conduct of the accused, he was released. He has contended that the
appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed and the judgment
and order of acquittal deserves to be confirmed.
11. On perusal of the jail remarks, it appears that the accused has
undergone period of 4 years 6 months and 19 days and after
considering the jail conduct, the jail authority has given the benefit
and released the accused.
12. We have perused the evidence recorded by the trial Court and
scrutinized the documentary evidence led before the trial Court. On
perusal of the materials on record, we find that the unnatural death
of the deceased was during the period of seven years from the date of
marriage. It appears from the record that not a single independent
witness has supported the case of the prosecution so far as the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC is
concerned and, therefore, the trial Court has disbelieved the case of
the prosecution. On perusal of the material on record, it emerges that
the real brother and mother of the deceased had been examined, but
they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they had
been declared hostile. It also reveals that though P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8
and P.W.9 were examined before the trial Court, they have also not
supported the case of the prosecution and considering the oral
evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court has rightly passed the order
of acquittal qua the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201
of the IPC. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 304B and
498A of the IPC are concerned, the trial Court has convicted for the
offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B of the IPC and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
under Section 304B of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and the
sentences had been ordered to run concurrently. Considering the oral
as well as documentary evidence and the facts and circumstances of
the case, it appears that the case is based on circumstantial evidence
and there is no any eye witness to the incident in question and no any
cogent and convincing evidence were produced by the prosecution
before the trial Court. So far as proving the charge against the
accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC is concerned, the
prosecution was unable to prove the same. Considering the facts of
the case, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed
any error of law and facts while passing the judgment and order of
conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A
of the IPC and since the prosecution has failed to prove the case for
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, the
trial Court has passed the judgment and order of acquittal against the
accused. Prima facie there was no material, except on the date of
incident, the quarrel took between the husband and wife, but on
perusal of the contents of the panchnama of the scene of offence, it
appears that initially the deceased had tried to commit suicide and
ignited herself and therefore some pieces of burning cloths were lying
inside the room and, thereafter, the deadbody was found from the
Well. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 Dr.P. K. Gohil, it appears
that this doctor has found the following internal injuries:-
1. Brain was in liquid form.
2. Lung chlorenchyma was congested
3. There were no carbon particles in the trachea
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
4. right lung was congested and the left lung was congested. The
pleural fluid, which appeared to be hemorrhagic, was not filled
with fluid.
5. The heart was empty.
6. There was a blood clot in the aorta.
7. The abdominal wall, liver, gallbladder, spleen, kidneys and
urinary bladder were congested.
8. The stomach, small intestine and esophagus were empty.
9. Swollen uterus and one and a half to two months pregnant.
She must have eaten meals fourteen hours before the baby
was born.
13. Considering the deposition of Dr. P. K. Gohil, P.W.3, we are of
the opinion that the trial Court has rightly considered the evidence
available on record and there is no any infirmity and illegality in the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal. So far as the offence
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC is concerned, the
trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused and hence no
interference is called for in the present appeal. It is relevant to note
that the accused has already undergone the period of conviction and
sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 498A
of the IPC and the jail authority, after considering the conduct of the
accused, had given benefit and released the accused after completion
of the sentence for more than 4 years, 6 months and 19 days.
14. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However,
Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption
of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
15. Further, 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. Further, while
exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the
Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of
acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived
at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the
judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court
has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has
committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence
on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which he is charged.
16. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraph Nos.
42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in
[2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has enunciated
the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in
paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon'ble
Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more
particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, we are in complete
agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
17. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-
"20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the
general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa
and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of
the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a
judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus:
"42. .... (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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
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 is
available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential
for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly
indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for
discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able
to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It
was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it
would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a
contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is
absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject
their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of
the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this
light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing
with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant
Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered
judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the
benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained."
18. Considering the entire evidence on record and the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it clearly appears that there is no credible
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/577/1997 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
evidence to connect the present accused with the alleged crime and
the evidence on record is not so convincing to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the alleged crime.
Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on
record.
19. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the
accused from the charges levelled against him. Even on re-
appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
20. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. The
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is
hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
