IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Parvatbhai Navalsinh Rathod – Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 799 Of 2010
Decided On : 22-11-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306 and 498A - Appeal against acquittal - The trial court acquitted the accused of charges of abetment of suicide and cruelty. The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The marriage lasted four years with no prior complaints of cruelty. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the need for strong evidence to overturn acquittal. (Paras 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4)
(B) Evidence - Standards for conviction - The appellate court must respect the trial court's findings unless there is a clear error or misinterpretation of evidence. It must consider whether the trial court's conclusions are plausible. (Paras 6.5, 6.6)
(C) Presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act - The court clarified that mere suicide within seven years of marriage does not automatically imply abetment unless there is evidence of cruelty. (Paras 6.7)
JUDGMENT :
(Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.)
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat (original complainant) under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05/11/2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Dahod (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Sessions Case No.42 of 2009, whereby, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted the original accused respondent herein for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”).
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :
2.1 On 21/12/2008, the complainant namely, Shakarabhai Madubhai Sangod, resident of Amlimenpur, Ta.Dhanpur had dictated the facts of the complaint before PSI, Garbada that he has four daughters and one son. Out of them, marriage of his daughter namely, Champaben was done before around four years with Pavansinh Navalsinh Rathod of village Dadur. On 01/12/2008, younger brother of husband of his daughter namely, Kanubhai Navalsinh and Mandor Rameshbhai Badubhai from village Dadur came to his house at around 4.00 p.m. in the evening and inquired as to whether Champa visited his place or not. He replied that she had not visited his place. On being asked as to from when the said Champa is not present at his place, he replied that since she left from yesterday morning without informing anyone. Thereafter, on 04/12/2008, two persons came from village Dadur at around 10.00 a.m. in the morning and informed to him that his daughter namely, Champaben is found dead in Panchayat well of village Dadur. Therefore, persons from his village namely, Makansing Mansukhbhai and Narvatbhai Kalubhai and Fatesing Manabhai, etc. and the ladies reached at village Dadur and saw that dead body of his daughter namely, Champaben was lying in the well adjacent to the road. On removing her dead body, it appeared her skin was corrugated and no injury marks appeared on it. Thereafter, the said dead body was sent to the hospital for post-mortem. It is the case of the informant that the daughter of the informant namely, Champaben and son-inlaw namely, Parvatsinh and his mother namely, Babaliben and younger brother of her husband namely, Kanubhai were residing jointly in same residence. As Champaben did not have any child, on being displeased, she had returned to her maternal place for around thrice. As son-in-law came to pick her up, they gathered people as Panchas, persuaded her and sent her to her in laws’ place. Once his daughter came to his house on being displeased and she stayed there for around two months, Sarpanch of village Dadur and son in law namely, Parvatsinh and other persons visited there. At that time, upon gathering the people of the village, on reprimanding son-in- law, his daughter was persuaded and sent to her in laws’ place. On last Diwali, when brother of the complainant namely, Kalubhai had gone and brought his daughter, she informed that her husband was taunting her as she was unable to conceive a child. He demands to solemnize second marriage with another lady and thereby quarrels with her. Thereafter, as his son-in-law namely, Parvatsinh came to pick her up, he was reprimanded and told not to quarrel with his daughter. Thereafter, before around ten days of the said incident, his son-in-law namely, Parvatsinh came alone to his place and told him that now onwards neither himself nor his daughter shall visit his place and he left from there. Thereafter, dead body of his said daughter was found from panchayat well of village Dadur. Therefore, as son-in-law namely, Parvatsinh was causing mental harassment to his daughter for the reason of not able to conceive a child, demanded that he would solemnize second marriage and quarreling, the daughter of the complainant namely, Champaben on being fed up of such harassment, jumped in the well and died. As the sai
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka
Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415
Kumar @ Shiva Kumar vs. State of Karnataka
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence of abetment of suicide and cruelty, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecu....
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's conduct amounted to 'cruelty' leading to the victim's suicide, which was not established in this case.
Abetment of suicide – Merely on allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on part of accused which led or compelled the person to commit sui....
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 prosecution must provide clear evidence of instigation or connection to establish charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide under IPC; mere allegations are insufficient.
The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish abetment of suicide; clear evidence of intent and coercion is required.
Appeal against acquittal – When two views are possible, judgment and order of acquittal passed by trial Court should not be interfered with by Appellate Court unless for special reasons.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under IPC sections related to abetment of suicide.
In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence is paramount, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
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.