[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Rameshbhai Kanabhai Chamar on 18 March, 2026

                                                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.A/1350/2010                                           CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

                                                                                                                       undefined




                                                                                Reserved On   : 27/02/2026
                                                                                Pronounced On : 18/03/2026

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1350 of 2010

                       ==========================================================
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                          Versus
                                            RAMESHBHAI KANABHAI CHAMAR & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR PRADIP J PATEL(5896) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
                       1,2,3,4,5,6,7
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                            CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.12.2009, passed by

nd the learned 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at

Godhra, in Sessions Case No.110 of 2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114/34 of the

Indian Penal Code, the appellant - State of Gujarat has

preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial

before the trial Court is that the marriage of Kailashben

(deceased), the sister of the complainant (Kanubhai Kodarbhai

Chamar) took place with accused No.1 - Rameshbhai

Kanabhai Chamar 10 years ago. Accused Nos.2 to 7 are the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

family members i.e. in-laws of the deceased. After marriage,

Kailashben was residing in a joint family along with accused

Nos. 1 to 6. Since no child was born out of wedlock, the

accused started taunting Kailashben, saying her 'barren'.

Furthermore, the accused also taunted her regarding bringing

less dowry and thereby, the accused started giving her

physical and mental torture. Accused No.7 was also harassing

the deceased; and that as it had become intolerable, on the

day of the incident i.e. on 05.03.2008, Kailsashben jumped

herself in the well and ended her life. Therefore, the

complaint was filed against the respondent/s-accused.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence

was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-

sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively

triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate

committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to

be registered as Sessions Case No.110 of 2008. The charge

was framed against the accused person/s. The accused

pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4.1 In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution

has examined 7 before the trial Court, which are described in

the impugned judgment, which are as under :

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

Sr. P.W. No. Name of Prosecution Particulars Exh. No.

No. Witness

Chamar

Chamar

Chamar Witness

Maheshbhai Modi Witness

Amin Officer

Chauhan Witness

4.2 The prosecution has produced 17 documentary

evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the

impugned judgment, which are as under :

                           Sr.No.                           Particulars                            Exh. No.















                                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.A/1350/2010                                                  CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

                                                                                                                              undefined










                                        earrings      from     the      body        of   the

                                        deceased



                                        in the panchanama





                                        for inquest







                                        sending muddamal







                                        Muddamal

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis

of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial

Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the

charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed

to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has

pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court

through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before

the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial

Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and

perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in

acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial

Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the

contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and

ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the

accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that

the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It

is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen

that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,

therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by

appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

7. As against that, learned advocate for the

respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by

the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned

trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the

accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal

by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by

the learned trial Court.

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral

as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and

dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and

order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with

the Court :

8.1 The prosecution has mainly relied on the

complaint filed by the brother of the deceased viz., Kanubhai

Kodarbhai Chamar, which is produced vide Exh.25. In the

said complaint, it has been stated that the deceased and accused No.1 had cordial relations after the marriage and

during festivals, the deceased used to come to her parental

house. In the said complaint, it has also been stated that

before eight months from the date of incident, the deceased

had come to her parental house and the deceased was crying

and the deceased had informed the complainant and other

family members that she has been harassed by the accused

at her matrimonial home and for no fault of her, she is

being harassed for not bringing any jewelry from her parents'

house; and that she has been taunted for not conceiving any

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

child. At that time, she had stayed at her parental house for

six months and thereafter, just before two months of the

incident, accused No.2 and one Khanabhai had assured that

they will not harass the deceased and relying on the said

assurance, the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial

home and after staying there for about 1 ½ month, she

again came to her parental house. At that time, accused No.7

had come to her matrimonial home and had informed

respondent Nos.2 and 3 as to why they had sent the

deceased back to the matrimonial home; and that as the

deceased could not bear a child, they will get a new wife for

accused No.1. At that point of time, the deceased had stayed

for four days at her parental house and thereafter had gone

back to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the deceased had

committed suicide because of the constant harassment and demand of dowry from the accused deceased.

8.2 The prosecution has examined Dr.Pinkesh

Maheshbhai Modi as P.W.1, vide Exh.10. He had conducted

the post-mortem of the deceased. The post-mortem report is

produced vide Exh.13. As per the said report, the cause of

death was asphyxia due to drowning and the cause of death

certificate is issued vide Exh.14.

8.3 The prosecution has produced the panchanama of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

place of offence vide Exh.17. The panch witness - Gandabhai

Bhurabhai Chamar has been examined as P.W.2, vide Exh.16,

who has not supported the case of the prosecution.

The inquest panchanama is produced vide Exh.18.

The seizure panchanama of earrings recovered from the body

of the deceased is produced vide Exh.19.

8.4 The prosecution has examined the complainant

viz., Kanubhai Kodarbhai Chamar, who is a brother of the

deceased, as P.W.3, vide Exh.24. In his cross-examination, he

has stated that it is true that after the marriage, there was

no marital discord between the deceased and accused No.1.

He has also admitted that before filing the present complaint,

there is no previous complaint against the accused for

allegedly harassing and causing mental cruelty to the deceased and for demand of dowry.

The prosecution has examined Hirabhai Dhanabhai

Chamar as P.W.4, vide Exh.26, who is the uncle of the

deceased. In his deposition, he has stated that there were

cordial relations between the deceased and the accused during

the first two to three years of the marriage; and that the

deceased was taunted for not conceiving a child and was

physically and mentally harassed by the accused.

8.5 The P.S.I. - Jignesh Ganeshbhai Amin has been

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

examined as P.W.6, vide Exh.28. In his evidence, it is stated

that he has taken the statement of Khanabhai. The said

Khanabhai had come at the parental house of the deceased

to take her back to her matrimonial home; and that as she

was not well, he could not bring the deceased to the

matrimonial home. The said police officer had also stated

that during his investigation, it has also been revealed that

before five months from the date of incident, the deceased

was not well.

8.6 If the entire case of the prosecution is taken into

consideration, the evidence of the complainant (P.W.3), who is

a brother of the deceased, is not sufficiently clear and

reliable. The witness has not given any specific evidence

regarding which accused, on which date, and by using which

words, had abused or harassed the deceased - Kailashben and subjected her to mental cruelty; and that the marriage

span of the deceased was about ten years and during the

said period, there is no child; and that whenever deceased -

Kailashben used to visit her parental home, she used to

complain that her husband i.e. accused No.1 - Rameshbhai

Kanabhai Chamar, father-in-law i.e. accused No.2 - Kanabhai

Hirabhai Chamar, mother-in-law i.e. accused No.3 - Maniben

Kanabhai Chamar and sister-in-law i.e. accused No.6 -

Bhavnaben Kanabhai Chamar used to taunt her by calling

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

her 'barren'; and that they used to say that they would get

accused No.1 - Rameshbhai Kanabhai Chamar i.e. husband of

the deceased married again and thereby subjected her to

mental harassment.

8.7 The prosecution has not been able to prove as to

what was the mental and physical harassment and demand

of dowry each accused has meted out on the deceased.

Moreover, no particulars have been stated by the prosecution

to prove its case against the deceased. Despite the fact that

Kailashben - the deceased was subjected to physical and

mental harassment, she was persuaded and sent back to her

matrimonial home; and that about one year prior to the

incident, the in-laws of Kailashben had told her that they

would arrange a second marriage for their son and asked her

to bring money from her father and brother, and by pressurizing her, they had driven her out of the house; and

at that time, Kailasben - the deceased stayed at her

parental home for about five to six months. However, the

fact that the complainant had never filed any complaint

previously against the accused persons; and no meeting was

ever convened regarding the alleged dispute; and that

whenever his sister was driven out of her matrimonial home

by her in-laws, no complaint was lodged at any point of

time; and that there is no whisper by the complainant

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

regarding the fact that the in-laws had pressurized the

deceased by telling her that they intended to arrange a

second marriage and asking her to bring money from the

complainant; and that the fact remains that after being

driven out, the deceased had stayed at the parental home for

about five to six months.

9.1 The evidence on record and the glaring omission

on the prosecution as pointed out above leaves no room of

doubt that the order passed by the trial Court is as per law.

The trial Court has rightly held that there was no positive

evidence on record to prove that the accused by way of the

conduct or spoken words, overtly or covertly, actually aided

and abetted or instigated the deceased in such a manner

that it leaves no other option for the deceased but to commit

suicide. In the present case, the prosecution has also not been able to prove the clear motive of the accused to commit

offence of abatement. There is also no close connection

between the accused's action and the deceased's choice to

commit suicide. In view of the said fact, the prosecution has

not been able to prove that the accused have stimulated the

deceased to commit suicide.

9.2 The prosecution has not proved that there was a

clear motive to commit the offence of abatement. The

prosecution has also not proved that the accused proceeded to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

encourage and/or irritate the deceased through words or

insults and that the accused intended to urge the deceased to

end it all by committing suicide. The prosecution has also

not been able to prove the direct connection between the

incitement and committal of suicide. The prosecution has also

not been able to prove direct or indirect act of incitement to

the commitment of suicide. The prosecution has also not been

able to prove by accusation of harassment without any

positive action on the part of the accused close to the time

of occurrence that led and forced the deceased to commit

suicide.

9.3 The present matter turns on whether the conduct

attributed to the accused satisfies the legal threshold of

abetment of suicide. Therefore, read as a whole, it can be said that mere occurrence of a suicide does not automatically

trigger rigours of the Section. The penal consequences under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code arise when the

prosecution is able to establish that the accused abetted and

had a role in provoking or facilitating that suicide. Therefore,

this twin test distinction is required to be borne in mind.

9.4 Abetment, as understood in criminal jurisprudence,

is not a broad moral expression but a term of precise

statutory meaning. Section 107 IPC delineates its contours:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. Each of these

modes presupposes active involvement. The law does not

punish omission except in some cases, it punishes intentional

encouragement or positive facilitation of a prohibited act.

9.5 It is therefore not sufficient to show that the

deceased was unhappy, distressed, or subjected to unpleasant

treatment. The jurisprudence developed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has consistently underscored that routine

domestic disagreements, suspicion between spouses, or

episodes of harassment do not ipso facto amount to

instigation. Rigours of this Section intervene only where there

is clear evidence of mens rea and a direct causal link

between the accused's conduct and the decision of the

deceased to commit suicide.

9.6 The concept of instigation demands something more

than mere reproach or accusation. It connotes an active

suggestion, an incitement, or conduct of such intensity that it

operates upon the mind of the victim and pushes him or her

toward this drastic and unfortunate step. The prosecution

therefore, must demonstrate either a deliberate intention to

drive the deceased to suicide or knowledge that the conduct

in question was likely to produce that consequence. Equally

indispensable is the requirement of proximity. The law insists

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

on a live and immediate nexus between the acts complained

of and the suicide. A remote or generalized allegation is

insufficient. There must be evidence showing that the accused

engaged in conduct so closely connected in time and effect

with the suicide that it can reasonably be said to have

triggered the fatal act.

9.7 No material has been brought on record

demonstrating any proximate act immediately preceding the

suicide which could be construed as instigation. Nor is there

evidence of a positive act amounting to intentional aid. The

essential ingredients of abetment -namely, culpable mental

state coupled with active or proximate conduct-are not

established.

9.8 On an overall assessment of the evidence, the

prosecution has failed to demonstrate the existence of the

foundational elements necessary to sustain a conviction under

Section 306 IPC.

10. In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of

Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it has been held

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment

lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional

doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. Instigation

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion

without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot

be said to be instigation.

10.1 In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of

Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (1) Crimes 347 (SC), the observations

are made with regard to abetment of suicide. It has been

held that in order to bring a case within purview of Section

306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in commission of said offence, person who is said to have abetted

commission of suicide must have played active role by act of

instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of

suicide. It has been further observed that the act of

abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved

and established by prosecution before he could be convicted

under Section 306 IPC. It is further observed that to satisfy

requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or

by a continued course of conduct should have created such

circumstances that deceased was left with no other option,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

except to commit suicide.

10.2 In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus

State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it has been held

that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be

proof of direct or indirect act(s) 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 deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms

of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.

10.3 In the case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020)

15 SCC 359, after considering the provisions of Sections 306

and 107 of IPC, the Court held that conviction under Section

306 IPC is not sustainable 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.

10.4 In the case of Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244,

it was held that there has to be an act of incitement on the

part of the accused proximate to the date on which the

deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not

only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

of such a nature that the deceased was left with no

alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.

11. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show

any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that

the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest

illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court

below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above

view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the Court below was completely justified in passing

impugned judgment and order.

12. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial

Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence

connecting the accused with the incident and there are contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.

In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that

the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive

of the accused behind the incident is not established. The

trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record

and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has

rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.

13. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal

appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons

assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.

Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of

State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC

1417 wherein it is held as under :

                                                 "...      This       court        has      observed     in      Girija
                                                 Nandini            Devi         V.       Bigendra          Nandini
                                                 Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC
                                                 1124)       that     it    is      not    the    duty      of    the

appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

14. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the

reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the

discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.

15. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,

reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as

under:

"The powers of the High Court in an appeal

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same

cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged

or demolished, the High Court should not

disturb the order of acquittal."

16. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of

Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial

Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.

It is further observed that High Court's interference in such

appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by

the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court

should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the

belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have

taken a different view.

17. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,

reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

observed as under:

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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 emphasise 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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."

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in

the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s

State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held in paragraph 24 as under:

"24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1350/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

19. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to

interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

20. In view of above facts and circumstances of the

case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I

found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the

findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under