Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vipul M. Pancholi, Hemant M. Prachchhak, JJ.
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Maniben Wife Of Lallubhai Somabhai Patanwadia & others – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 1997
Decided On : 15-02-2023
Indian Penal Code - Acquittal - Sections 304(B), 306, 34 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, State of Gujarat, appealed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Vadodara in a case involving the accused being acquitted from the charge of offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case revolved around the alleged suicide of the deceased, Nitaben, after facing mental and physical harassment from her in-laws for dowry.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence, and found that the witnesses had contradictory and improvised versions. The court also considered the provisions of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, which pertains to the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. The court concluded that there was no cogent and convincing evidence to draw the presumption for the offence under Section 498A or under the Dowry Prohibition Act. As a result, the court upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the demand for dowry, and the application of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act in the context of the alleged suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for cogent and convincing evidence to draw the presumption for the offence under Section 498A or under the Dowry Prohibition Act. It also highlighted the discretionary nature of the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act and the double presumption in favour of the accused in cases of acquittal.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the judgment and order of acquittal, dismissing the appeal by the State of Gujarat.
JUDGMENT :
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.76 of 1996 whereby the accused – respondents herein came to be acquitted from the charge of the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 306, 34 etc. the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”), the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred present criminal appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”).
2. Briefly stated, the complainant – Ajitsinh Parshottamdas Thakor registered complaint with Vadodara J. P. Road Police Station, Vadodara inter alia stating that he was doing agricultural work and he was also a social worker. It is alleged that elder daughter of complainant Nitaben was married with accused – Ramesh and she was residing along with her father-in-law and mother-in-law and her sister-in-laws namely Niranjanaben and Sangitaben were also residing along with them. It is alleged that Nitaben came to her parental house and often and often she told the complainant that the accused persons demanded dowry and they harassed her mentally and physically and, thereafter, the complainant after understanding sent her to the matrimonial house. It is further alleged that on 08.02.1996 at about 4.00 p.m., when the complainant was at the office of Taluka Panchayat at that time he received a phone call from Mangalmurti Society that he reached at the house of the accused immediately. It is also alleged that the complainant reached at the house of the accused and saw that the accused were present at the house and Nitaben was lying on surface in straight condition and the complainant asked about happening with Nitaben, but none had given any reply. It is alleged that the complainant checked Nitaben, thereupon, he knew that Nitaben was died.
3. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by the complainant, investigating agency carried out the investigation and recorded statements of the prosecution witnesses, drawn various panchanamas and collected relevant expert evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found sufficient material against the respondents herein, charge-sheet came to be filed before the concerned Magistrate Court. Since the case was exclusively triable by Sessions Court, concerned Magistrate Court committed the case to the Sessions Court as provided under section 209 of the Code.
4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exhibit 3 on 25.07.1996 against the accused - respondents herein for the aforesaid offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 12 prosecution witnesses and also produced documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, which is as under :-
| Sr.No | Name of witnesses | Exhibit |
| 1 | Ajitsinh Parshottamdas Thakor-complainant and father of the deceased | 11 |
| 2 | Madhuben wife of Ajitsinh Thakor-mother of the deceased | 14 |
| 3 | Dilavarsinh Bhailalbhai Vaghela-brother-in-law of the accused | 15 |
| 4 | Sushilaben Dilavarsinh Vaghela-sister-in-law of the accused | 16 |
| 5 | Kalpnaben Jayeshbhai Solanki-first wife of accused no.3 | 20 |
| 6 | Tarlikaben Tulsibhai Solanki-Neighbour | 23 |
| 7 | Ilaben Ajitbhai Thakor-sister of the deceased | 24 |
| 8 | Suvarnaben Dineshchandra Mehta-Neighbour | 25 |
| 9 | Ramchandra Prabhatsinh Barot-PSI | 26 |
| 10 | Bhaskarrao Ramdas Simpi-Investigating Officer | 27 |
| 11 | Mahendrabhai Malubhai Patel-Panch witness | 36 |
| 12 | Nayanbhai Meshubhai Modi-Medical officer | 37 |
| Sr.No | Documents | Exhibit |
| 1 | Complaint | 12 |
| 2 | Letter written by the complainant to the Police Commissioner | 13 |
| 3 | Inquest panchnama | 17 |
|
| ||
The need for cogent and convincing evidence to draw the presumption for the offence under Section 498A or under the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the discretionary nature of the presumption under Sectio....
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 abetment under Section 113A of the Evidence Act does not apply automatically; the prosecution must prove cruelty to establish guilt under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.
The prosecution must provide clear evidence of instigation or connection to establish charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide under IPC; mere allegations are insufficient.
Court emphasized the necessity of establishing clear evidence of cruelty to invoke presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, reinforcing the presumption of innocence ....
The presumption of abetment under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act requires evidence of cruelty, which was not established in this case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
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 prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under IPC sections related to abetment of 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.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal of respondents due to insufficient evidence of cruelty and abetment of suicide, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for substa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
