IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Gadhavi Mahnardan Haridan & 4 Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2484 of 2008
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306, 498-A, 504, 114 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378(1) (3) – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 7 Judgment and order – Criminal justice revolves – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Abetment of suicide – Appeal, at instance of State, filed under Section 378(1) (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing judgment and order, passed in Sessions Case, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, recording acquittal of respondents –Held, On re-appreciation and re-evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record, as well as considering settled legal position, it transpires that prosecution has failed to prove case against surviving respondent Nos. 4 and 5 - original accused beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as ingredients of offence alleged are not fulfilled – Court has gone through in detail impugned judgment and order and found that learned trial Judge has meticulously considered depositions of all witnesses and came to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove case against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 - original accused Nos. 4 and 5 beyond reasonable doubt –Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. By virtue of an order dated 25.08.2022 passed by this Court directing to issue the non-bailable warrant against the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5, the respondent Nos. 4 (Gadhavi Panuben @ Pushpaben D/o. Haridan Oghaddan) and 5 (Gadhavi Nimuben D/o. Haridan Oghaddan) are produced before the Court. So far as respondent No. 1 - Gadhavi Mahnardan (sic. Manhardan) Haridan is concerned, as per the report of the Police Sub Inspector, Harij Police Station dated 06.09.2022, which is produced on record, he is already expired as back as on 20.06.2020. A copy of death certificate is also annexed with the said report. In that view of the matter, the appeal is hereby abated qua respondent No. 1.
Prelude:
2. This is an appeal, at the instance of State, filed under Section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as "the Code"), assailing the judgment and order dated 10.07.2008, passed in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2008, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Patan, recording the acquittal of the respondents - original accused.
Factual matrix:
3. Marriage of deceased Chandrikaben was solemnized with accused No. 1 - Gadhavi Mahnardan (sic. Manhardan) Haridan, prior to about nine years of the incident in question. In kariyavar, she was given 10 tola Gold, 1 kg. Silver, and also some clothes. In progeny, they have three children - two sons and one daughter. That, after the marriage, whenever the deceased visited her parental home, she used to inform about taunting by the respondents - accused saying she had not brought anything towards kariyavar and that, her mother was a beggar. It is further the case of the prosecution that when the deceased visited on Dussera, at that time, she informed the complainant that the respondents - accused used to give physical and mental torture and also demanded of Rs.10,000/- from them for doing business and hence, as the complainant had only Rs.3,000/- on hand, it was given to the deceased asking her to give rest after arranging for the same and sent the deceased back to her matrimonial home. However, on 07.11.2007 husband of the deceased - Mahnardan (sic.), the accused No. 1, informed the complainant on phone that her daughter (the deceased) had sustained burn injuries while blowing out the primus after preparing tea and was shifted to civil hospital and hence, the complainant rushed to the civil hospital where, on asking about the incident, the deceased informed that the accused used to taunt her about kariyavar and used to address her mother as beggar and abused her. The accused also told her that she (the deceased) and her mother (the complainant) were doing "dhandho" (flesh trade). Frustrated by such a treatment, she set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene on account of persistent harassment and torture by the respondents - accused persons. Thus, the respondents committed offence in question for which, FIR came to be registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana
Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab
Manojbhai Laljibhai Kabaria v. State of Gujarat
Shambhoo Missir v. State of Bihar
Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P.
State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh
S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy
Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P.
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra
Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka
Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn
Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons
Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE
Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P.
Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police
Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka
Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat
The judgment emphasized the presumption of innocence, the principles for interference with a judgment of acquittal, and the need for trustworthy evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment reaffirms the principle of presumption of innocence, the need for clear evidence in cases of abetment of suicide, and the reluctance to disturb a trial court's finding of acquittal unles....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in cases of acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for reliable evidence linking alleged cruelty to suicide.
The presumption of innocence, the need for clear evidence to prove guilt, and the reluctance to disturb a finding of acquittal unless it is perverse or unsustainable in law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.