[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Laljibhai Mithabhai Sakariya on 9 March, 2026

                                                                                                                            NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/1680/2010                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

                                                                                                                            undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1680 of 2010

                       ==========================================================
                                                            STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                                  Versus
                                                      LALJIBHAI MITHABHAI SAKARIYA
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR RUSHABH R SHAH(5314) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                       MR SURESH G PATEL(2004) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                             Date : 09/03/2026

                                                               JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.07.2010, passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions

Case No.60 of 2008, for the offences punishable under Section

306 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 Sessions Court is that on 08.04.2008 at about 3:00

p.m., the husband of the complainant informed her that he is

going at Village : Santhli on motorcycle at the house of his

sister Hemiben and will return on next day morning.

Thereafter, on 09.04.2009, while the complainant - Shardaben

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

was present at her house, the neighbour of the field viz.,

Bharatbhai Parshottambhai came at the house of the

complainant and informed that Himmatbhai was lying at

Vadi and accordingly, he is taken at the hospital; and that

the husband of the complainant is having dispute regarding

agricultural land with his brother Laljibhai Mithabhai and

therefore, in continuation of this dispute, Laljibhai had given

filthy abuses as well as given kick and fist blows to the

complainant prior to twelves days from the date of incident

and accordingly, the husband of the complainant gave a

complaint before Devaliya Out Post; and that the accused

had also administered threat to cause death of husband of

the complainant and as such, the husband of the complainant

was ill-treated and harassed by the accused, therefore, he has

committed suicide by consuming poisonous drugs. 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.60 of 2008. The charge

was framed against the accused person/s. The accused

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

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

has examined 8 witnesses and also produced 21 documentary

evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the

impugned judgment.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

complaint that has been filed by the wife of the deceased

dated 09.04.2008, wherein it has been stated that on

08.04.2008, at around 3:00 p.m., the deceased had gone on

his motorcycle to meet his sister Hemiben and informed that

he will return on the next day morning. At that point of

time, at the afternoon hours, the neighbour of the

complainant viz., Bharatbhai Parshottambhai came to the

house of the complainant and informed that the deceased was

seen lying at the Vadi (field) and had informed that they

were taking him to the hospital in the ambulance.

8.2 As per the case of the prosecution, where it is

mainly stated that there was a dispute between the deceased

and his brother i.e. the accused Laljibhai Mithabhai Sakariya

with respect to the land in Village : Jivai and just before 12 days from the date of the incident, the accused had come to

the residence of the deceased and had physically assaulted

the deceased and was shouting at the top of his voice. In

the said complaint, which is produced vide Exh.23, it has

also been stated that the accused was harassing the deceased

with respect to the ancestral land. The accused had also

threatened the deceased of his life and it is because of the

said threats, the deceased had consumed poison.

8.3 The prosecution has examined Dr.Kamleshgiri

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

Himmatgiri Gosai as P.W.1, vide Exh.14, who was the

Medical Officer at CHC, Babra and who has conducted the

postmortem report, which is produced vide Exh.15. As per the

postmortem report, the deceased had died due to cardio-

respiratory arrest and the cause of death was kept pending

due to the fact that it was sent to the FSL and the said

FSL report, which is produced vide Exh.42, wherein it has

been stated that there was aluminum phosphate chemical

poison found in the body of the deceased and the said doctor

had opined that the deceased had died because of consuming

the said poison.

8.4 The complainant - Shardaben Himmatbhai

Sakariya i.e. the wife of the deceased has been examined as

P.W.1, vide Exh.22. The said complainant has deposed that the deceased had settled the dispute with respect to the land

situated on the way of Village : Kotda and the settlement

terms were signed by the deceased and the accused on

27.02.2007.

8.5 The prosecution has examined Vinubhai Naranbhai

Sakariya as P.W.3, vide Exh.26, who was the panch witness

of the panchanama of scene of offence which is produced vide

Exh.27 and who happens to be the cousion of the deceased.

In his deposition, the said witness has stated that he does

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

not know the reason as to why the deceased had committed

suicide.

8.6 The inquest panchanama is produced vide Exh.28.

The arrest panchanama is produced vide Exh.29.

8.7 The prosecution has examined Bharatbhai

Parshottambhai Sakariya as P.W.4, vide Exh.30, who had

taken the deceased to the hospital. In his deposition, he has

stated that the reason for committing suicide was because of

the dispute between the deceased and the accused for the

land and that the deceased was constantly threatened by the

accused.

8.8 The prosecution has examined police constable viz.,

Narendrarao Gajanandrao Vare as P.W.5, vide Exh.32, who has registered a complaint (Exh.33).

The prosecution has examined Nathubhai Dhirajlal

Chavdagor as P.W.6, vide Exh.34, who was the A.S.I. at

Devaliya Out Post, who has received a complaint, which is

produced at Exh.38.

8.9 If the complaint, which is produced at Exh.38, is

perused, the said complaint is given by the deceased during

his lifetime that just before few days before the date of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

incident i.e. on 27.03.2008, wherein the deceased did not

state anything about the dispute between the deceased and

the accused for the land, but the said complaint clearly

states that the deceased and the accused did no have talking

terms since last 1½ years.

On 27.03.2008, the accused had come to his house

to borrow a sieve for wheat and since there was no relation

between them since long, the deceased refused him to give,

hence, the accused got excited, started abusing and assaulting

the deceased. However, the complainant himself has neither

stated that there was a dispute with the accused just before

few days nor about the dispute with respect to the ancestral

land.

Moreover, though the complainant and other

relatives of the complainant have stated that the deceased had informed them that there was a constant dispute

between the deceased and the accused with respect to the

land, there is neither any civil litigation nor is there any

criminal complaint between the deceased and the accused.

8.10 Moreover, if the panchanama of land produced vide

Exh.40 is taken into consideration, the same also does not

prove that the land that belongs to the deceased, had been

illegally occupied by the accused.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

8.11 The prosecution has examined P.I. of Babra Police

Station viz., Naranbhai Bhaybhai Chavda vide Exh.39 as

P.W.7. He has stated that he has not taken the statement of

the sister to whose house, the deceased was stated to have

gone on the motorcycle.

The prosecution has also examined Kishorbhai

Thuljibhai Baroliya as P.W.8, vide Exh.41, who was PSI,

Babra.

8.12 If the entire case of the prosecution is taken into

consideration, though it has been stated in the complaint

that the deceased was going to the house of his sister

Hemiben, but neither Hemiben has been examined by the

prosecution nor her statement has been taken.

8.13 The complaint filed by the deceased during his

lifetime, which is produced vide Exh.38, is also silent about

any threats and/or any dispute with respect to the land

belonging to the parties.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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:

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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,

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 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,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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."

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:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

"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."

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1680/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026