[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Kanjibhai Narshibhai Zatavadiya on 25 March, 2026

                                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                        R/CR.A/1440/2012                                              CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                                                                   Reserved On   : 10/03/2026
                                                                                   Pronounced On : 25/03/2026

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                             R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1440 of 2012

                      ==========================================================
                                                      STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                            Versus
                                           KANJIBHAI NARSHIBHAI ZATAVADIYA & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR CHIRAG H PAREKH(5249) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
                      RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                          CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.05.2012, passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kutchh, in Sessions

Case No.51 of 2011, for the offences punishable under

Sections 306, 498(A), 114 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 complainant Kunvarben,

alleged that her daughter Rekha, was married to accused

No.1 Kanji Narshi Jatvadiya, about three years prior to the

incident and was living in a joint family with the accused

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

persons. Rekha had a two-year-old child. According to the

complaint, the accused persons subjected her to physical and

mental cruelty for dowry and demanded money from her

parental home. On 04.07.2011, the complainant received

information that Rekha had committed suicide by

strangulation and was taken to Lakadiya Government

Hospital, where injury marks were noticed on her neck.

Alleging that continuous harassment by the accused led

Rekha to commit suicide, the complainant lodged a complaint

on 07.07.2011 at Lakadiya Police Station for offences under

Sections 306, 498-A and 114 of the IPC.

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.51 of 2011. The charge

was framed against the accused person/s. The accused

pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution

has examined 24 documentary and oral evidence before the

trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

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

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 relied on the complaint filed below

exhibit 50/C dated 07.07.2011, which has been filed by the

mother of the deceased, wherein she has stated that the

deceased was residing with accused nos.1 and 2 and

occasionally used to come to the parental house and before 1

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

or 2 months from the date of incident, the deceased had

come to her parental house, where the accused no.1 had

come to drop her and had stayed there for around 10 days.

In the said complaint it has been stated that on 04.07.2011,

the complainant received a phone call from her brother-in-

law, Mayaram that the deceased had committed suicide by

hanging herself and was taken to the hospital at Lakadiya

and therefore the complainant had come and after the post-

mortem was conducted on the deceased and after the last

rites of the deceased were completed, when the complainant

and her husband were returning, the complainant's husband

informed that he had seen a black mark near the neck of

the deceased and at that time the complainant informed that,

the deceased was telling her when she was alive that, she

was harassed by her in-laws and the said fact was informed by the deceased when the deceased had come to reside at

her parent's house and that accused no.1 was not doing any

job and he had sold all the ornaments that belonged to the

deceased and has stated that the deceased expired because of

the harassment of the accused.

8.2. The prosecution has examined Dr.Bhavik Parmar, who

was working at Common Health Centre, Gandhidham, vide

exhibit 42, as PW-7. He was the Doctor, who had performed

the postmortem of the deceased and the cause of death is

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

shown in the postmortem report, produced vide exhibit 44/C,

as cardio respiratory arrest and asphyxia due to hanging.

8.3. The prosecution has produced the inquest Panchnama

vide exhibit-36/C. The complainant Kunvarben Raimal i.e. the

mother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.8 vide

exhibit 49/C. The father of the deceased Ambarambhai

Raimal, has been examined as PW-9, vide exhibit 51/C. The

brother of the deceased Baldev Sukhad has been examined as

P.W.10 vide exhibit-53/C. The other brother of the deceased

Dilip Sukhad has been examined as P.W.11 vide exhibit-54/C.

The maternal grandmother of the deceased Parvati

Ranchotbhai has been examined vide exhibit 57/C as P.W.12.

The prosecution has examined the P.S.O.-Bhartiben

Ghanshyambhai as P.W.13, vide exhibit-58/C. The Police Officer Vikrant Ramanlal has been examined vide exhibit

61/C as P.W.14, in his deposition, he has stated that he had

taken statements from the neighbours who were residing near

the matrimonial house of the deceased, he has also stated

that in his investigation he had also come to know that the

deceased was regularly meeting the neighbours and he has

also stated that in his investigation he has not found from

any of the neighbours that there was any harassment by the

accused on the deceased and that there was no demand of

dowry by the accused. The prosecution has produced the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

panchnama of scene of offence vide exhibit 30 and the panch

witness Karsan Rabari has been examined as P.W.1 vide

exhibit 29/C and P.W.2 Ishwar Prajapati vide exhibit 31/C,

both are the panch witness of the scene of offence, which is

produced vide exhibit-30. Both have turned hostile and have

not supported the case of the prosecution.

8.4. The prosecution has produced inquest Panchnama wide

exhibit 36 and the three panchas of the said Panchnama

P.W.3 Mehboob Shah Hussain Shah has been examined vide

35/C, P.W.4-Jeevabhai Gopal vide exhibit-37 and P.W.5-

Sangeetaben Mohan vide exhibit 38. All the three panch of

inquest Panchnama produced vide exhibit-36 have turned

hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution.

8.5. The prosecution has produced the arrest Panchnama vide

exhibit-40/C and the panch witness Jagdish Maharaj has been

examined as P.W.6 vide exhibit 13/C, wherein he has stated

that it is not true that the Panchnama has been prepared as

per his statement and it is true that he had signed a

Panchnama which was already prepared.

8.6. It transpires that the husband of the complainant had

filed a complaint at village Lakhadia and thereafter the

second complaint has been filed at Bhachau by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

complainant. It also transpires that the deceased was

regularly going to the house of Mayaram but said Mayaram

has not been examined by the prosecution, said Mayaram

was the uncle of the deceased. From the oral evidence of the

brothers of the deceased, the maternal grandmother of the

deceased, the father of the deceased and the complainant, the

prosecution has failed to prove the direct involvement of the

accused for instigating the deceased to commit suicide.

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

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:

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

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,

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

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

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

under:

"The powers of the High Court in an appeal 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

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 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

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."

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

undefined

is possible from the evidence available on record."

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

the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly

acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons

stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the