[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Abhishek Dinesh Daafda on 9 March, 2026

                                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.A/522/2012                                            JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 522 of 2012


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                             Yes           No

                       ==========================================================
                                                          STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                                Versus
                                                       ABHISHEK DINESH DAAFDA
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR ASHUTOSH S DAVE(8865) 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 11.01.2012, passed by th the learned 8 Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions

Case No.46 of 2009, for the offences punishable under

Sections 306, 452, 294(b) and 507 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

before the trial Court is that the husband of the complainant

was plying rickshaw and was having four daughters, amongst

which, the younger daughter viz., Alpa was having love affair

with the accused - Abhishek Dineshbhai Dafda, who was

residing in their society and thereafter, due to the nature of

the accused - Abhishek, the daughter of the complainant

discontinued the love affair with the accused since one month

before the incident. Thereafter, accused was teasing Alpa

frequently by doing phone calls at her house and was telling

her that if she would not marry him, then he would not

leave her alive and when she would get engaged, then he

would break her engagement. Therefore, the accused was

constantly harassing the daughter of the complainant and

sometimes, in their absence by climbing over terrace, he was

entering into their house to tease the daughter of the complainant. That on 12.01.2008, the complainant had gone

to Vadodara at the house of her another daughter - Manisha

for some work, at that time, brother-in-law of the

complainant viz., Dipakbhai Mohanbhai Soni called the

complainant and informed that Alpa is burnt seriously and is

admitted in the Ashaktashram Hospital. Thereafter, the

complainant and other relatives came to the hospital and

asked about the incident and daughter of the complainant

stated that on the previous day at about 10:00 p.m., though

she did not like Abhishek, he came on terrace, kicked the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

door and threatened her, she told him that she did not want

to marry him, even though he was teasing her, therefore, she

told him that if he harass like that, then she would pour

kerosene and ablaze. Therefore, the daughter of the

complainant poured kerosene and set herself ablaze.

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.46 of 2009. 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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

7. As against that, learned advocate for the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

by the mother of the deceased Alpa viz., Hemlataben

Manharbhai Soni on 13.01.2008. The fact is that the incident

had taken place on 12.01.2008 at 21:45 hours and the

deceased Alpa succumbed to the injuries on 27.02.2008 at

13:30 hours.

If the entire complaint, which is filed by the

mother of the deceased, is taken into consideration, wherein,

she has stated that the deceased had informed the

complainant that she does not want to marry with the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

accused, even though, the accused was harassing the deceased

and because of the constant harassment by the accused, the

deceased committed suicide.

8.2 The main reliance of the prosecution was on the

dying declaration produced vide Exh.28 dated 13.01.2008,

which has been taken at 11:25 hours, wherein the deceased

has stated that she had an affair with the accused and since

last one month, their relation was not good because of the

nature of the accused as the accused was troubling her and

used to come on the terrace and threaten the deceased; and

that the deceased had informed him that she does not want

to marry with him, but he was harassing her; and that on

12.01.2008, the accused had come to the terrace and started

harassing the deceased, therefore, she poured kerosene on

herself and set herself ablaze and hearing the screams, the uncle of the deceased rushed there and took her to the

hospital.

8.3 The prosecution has examined the mother of the

deceased i.e. the complainant - Hemlataben Manharbhai Soni

as P.W.2, vide Exh.14. She has turned hostile and has not

supported the case of the prosecution. She has also stated

that there was no fight between the accused and the

deceased. She has also stated that the cause of death as

stated by the deceased to her was because of burn injury

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

while making food on the stove.

In cross-examination, she has also stated that as

one of her daughter settled at Paris, there was a constant

pressure given by the family members to the deceased to

settle at Paris and the deceased did not want to go there.

She has also stated that there was no dispute between the

deceased and accused.

8.4 The prosecution has examined the sister of the

deceased viz., Manishaben Vinayak Soni as P.W.8, vide

Exh.25. She has turned hostile and not supported the case of

the prosecution.

8.5 The prosecution has examined Dr.Arvindkumar

Dashrathsinh as P.W.1, vide Exh.7. The postmortem report is

produced vide Exh.9. As per the said report, the cause of

death is septicemia due to burns.

The panch witness of the panchnama, which is

produced vide Exh.29, viz., Shukla Dhaneshbhai Indravadan

has been examined as P.W.7, vide Exh.24. He has turned

hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The

panchnama of place of occurrence has been produced vide

Exh.23 and the witness of the said panchanama viz., Jitubhai

Mangalbhai Patel has been examined as P.W.6, vide Exh.22.

Both the witnesses have turned hostile and they have not

supported the case of the prosecution.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

The prosecution has examined Maganbhai

Kashmabhai Chaudhary as P.W.5, vide Exh.20, who was the

Investigating Officer, who had conducted the investigation.

The prosecution has examined Executive Magistrate

Mahendra Solanki who has taken the dying declaration vide

Exh.26 as P.W.9.

8.6 If the entire case of the prosecution is taken into

consideration, the family members of the deceased have not

supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile

and it has been stated that when she was asked as to how

the injury had taken place, she has stated that the injury

was caused as she got burns from the stove.

8.7 All the witnesses have deposed that the deceased

had informed her that she had burnt herself while using

'primas' (stove) and due to big flame, she got burnt. The

prosecution has tried to rely on the dying declaration, but

the fact remains that in the present case, the witnesses

(family members) have stated that the deceased herself had

informed them that she had burnt herself while using stove

and therefore, multiple dying declarations i.e. before the

family members and one before the Executive Magistrate

differ from each other.

If the dying declaration, which is taken by the

Executive Magistrate viz., Mahendrasinh Vajesinh Solanki,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

who has been examined as P.W.9, vide Exh.26, is taken into

consideration, the said dying declaration is silent about the

fact that a separate certificate has not been taken from the

doctor regarding the consciousness of the deceased.

If the police yadi, which is produced vide Exh.27,

is taken into consideration, there is an endorsement made by

the doctor which states that the patient is conscious and able

to give statement at 10:30 hours, on 13.01.2008 and just

above the said statement, the said doctor has again endorsed

that the patient is unconscious, and unable to give statement

and timing of the said endorsement is stated to be 12:10

hours. Therefore, though the doctor has opined at 10:30 a.m.

that the patient is conscious and the dying declaration is

taken on 11:25 hours and the same has ended at 11:45

hours, but there is no statement either by the Executive Magistrate in the dying declaration and/or in his deposition

and/or there is any medical certificate to show that the

patient was in a conscious condition to give dying declaration.

In the present case, there is neither any statement nor

prosecution has proved that while giving the dying

declaration, the deceased was in a conscious state of mind to

give the statement. The said witness i.e. Executive Magistrate

has also, in his deposition, stated that when he left the

hospital, two-three persons were present there; and that he

had not obtained separate certificate from the doctor

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

regarding the conscious condition of the patient. Therefore,

the learned Sessions Court has also rightly not relied on the

dying declaration.

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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:

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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,

except to commit suicide.

10.2 In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

of such a nature that the deceased was left with no

alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

(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 reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

                                                  (5)     If        two        reasonable         conclusions           are






                                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.A/522/2012                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

                                                                                                                        undefined

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."

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/522/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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