Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1549
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
G.B. Shah, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Vs.
Sonalben and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 201 and 248 of 2014
Decided On : 05-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.P. Chandarana
For the Respondents: Prashant B. Khandheria
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of substantial and compelling reasons to reverse an order of acquittal, the importance of expert opinion, and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under sections 306, 498-A and 323 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 306, 498-A, 323 - The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to the charges under sections 306, 498-A, and 323 of the IPC. It emphasized the importance of expert opinion, the presumption of innocence, and the requirement of substantial and compelling reasons to reverse an order of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint filed by the father of the deceased against the accused, alleging physical and mental cruelty leading to the deceased's suicide. The prosecution presented evidence and witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. The court analyzed the evidence and the circumstances of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court was justified in acquitting accused Nos. 2 to 5 as there was no evidence of their involvement in the deceased's suicide. Regarding accused No. 1, the court noted the lack of substantial evidence and the importance of expert opinion in the case. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of accused No. 1.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, the importance of expert opinion, and the presumption of innocence. The court also addressed the principles governing appeals against orders of acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for substantial and compelling reasons to reverse an order of acquittal. It highlighted the importance of expert opinion and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The court's decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence and the failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2014 was dismissed, and Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2014 was allowed, leading to the acquittal of accused No. 1 and the setting aside of his conviction and sentence.
G.B. Shah, J.
1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the same judgment and order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2012 whereby original accused No. 1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo further SI for two years for the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and RI for three years with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to suffer further SI for six months for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC. However, no separate sentence was imposed on original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was given set off for the period undergone in jail. Original accused Nos. 2 to 5 were, however, acquitted of all the offences charged against them. Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2014 has been filed by the State against acquittal of original accused Nos. 2 to 5 whereas Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2014 has been filed by original accused No. 1 against his conviction.
2. Short facts of the case of the prosecution are that a complaint was filed by the complainant, father of the deceased-Nayana @ Sonal, against the accused stating that he had five daughters. His daughter Nayana @ Sonal had a love marriage with accused No. 1 Ramesh @ Jitu Hamirbhai Sogathiya. It was alleged inter alia that on 17.7.2011, his daughter Nayana aged 20 years came to his house as being unwell. On inquiry, his daughter narrated the incident to her mother and daughter Kundan stating that since last three months, she was staying separately in the house of Prakashbhai Nathabhai Vankar on rent and as they vacated the premises, she came there. On 20.7.2011, as she was not looking well, on inquiry by her mother, she stated that when she was residing at her in-laws' house, she was beaten by sister-in-law Sonalben, brother-in-law Maheshbhai, wife of brother-in-law, mother-in-law Shardaben and her husband Ramesh @ Jitu. It was also stated that as her husband and brother-in-law Maheshbhai pelted stones on her head, severe injuries were suffered by her and hence, she was staying separately in the house of Prakashbhai Nathabhai Vankar at Sarvodaya Society, Sheri No. 6. It was also stated by her that as her husband was drunkard and was beating her, said house was vacated. Further case of the prosecution was that when her daughter was not traceable, they were in search of their daughter. At that time, one Vinubhai Palabhai informed that a dead body was found in the Haji Dam and when he came to know that said dead body was sent to Government hospital, he went to Government hospital and identified the dead body as that of his daughter. In pursuance of said complaint, investigation started and as there appeared prima facie case against the accused persons, a charge sheet was filed against them. Thereafter charge was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
2.1 To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses. The prosecution also relied on several documentary evidence. After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded.
2.2 On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, impugned judgment and order as aforesaid in the earlier part of this judgment was delivered giving rise to the present appeals.
3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Reeta Chandarana for the State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Mr. Prashant B. Khandheria for the original accused.
4. As far as Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2014 filed by original accused No. 1 against his conviction is concerned, learned APP, Ms. Reeta Chandarana, vehemen
