Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Lakhamanbhai Premajibhai & Ors. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 274 Of 2008
Decided On : 28-11-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 306, 114 - Appeal against acquittal - The trial court acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC due to lack of evidence establishing cruelty or abetment of suicide. The appellate court found no error in the trial judge's reasoning, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 1.1, 2.8, 6.1, 6.3)
(B) Presumption of Innocence - The appellate court reiterated that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal, and interference is only warranted in cases of gross perversity. (Paras 6.1, 6.4)
(C) Evidence Evaluation - The court noted that contradictory witness statements and lack of independent corroboration undermined the prosecution's case. (Paras 5.1, 5.4, 6.2)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by the State of Gujarat against an acquittal in a case involving the suicide of a woman shortly after marriage. The prosecution alleged cruelty and dowry demands by her husband and in-laws, which were denied by the defense. (Paras 1, 2.1, 2.8)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal. (Paras 2.8, 6.1)
Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court was justified in its acquittal and whether the prosecution proved the charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide. (Paras 6.1)
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings, noting that the evidence did not establish a clear link between alleged cruelty and the suicide, and emphasized the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 6.1, 6.3)
Result: Appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal confirmed. (Paras 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 28/03/2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.11, Gondal camp at Dhoraji (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Sessions Case No.182 of 1993, whereby, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted the original accused respondents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”).
1.1 At the outset, it may be noted that the respondent No.1 – Lakhamanbhai Premajibhai, passed away on 09/05/2009 and respondent No.4 – Divaliben Lakhamanbhai passed away on 14/02/2020 pending the present appeal, and therefore, the present appeal stands abated qua respondent No.1 - Lakhamanbhai Premajibhai and No.4 - Divaliben Lakhamanbhai. The death certificates to that effect issued by the competent authority are placed on record.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :
2.1 An offence being C.R. No.100 of 1992 came to be registered with Patanvav Police Station for the offence under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code by the complainant viz., Labhuben wife of Ravjibhai resident of Motimarad, Taluka: Dhoraji.
2.2 It is stated in the complaint that the respondent-accused no.2 viz., Bipinbhai is the husband of the deceased, the respondent-accused no.1 viz., Lakhamanbhai and no.4 viz., Divaliben are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively and respondent-accused no.3 viz., Chandrakantbhai is brotherin- law (Diyar) of the deceased. All the accused persons used to taunt the deceased on account of household work and also ill treatment, harassment and torture on account of inadequacy of dowry and, hence, physical and mental torture meted out by the accused persons. On 04/10/1992, at about 7 o'clock in the morning, the deceased poured kerosene over her body and ignited herself and committed suicide. Accordingly, complaint came to be registered.
2.3 Upon such complaint, investigation was commenced and on conclusion of the investigation, on the basis of the material collected against the respondents-accused, since the Investigating Officer found a prima-facie case against the respondents-accused, charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhoraji for the offence under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, which came to be numbered as Criminal Case No.100 of 1992.
2.4 As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhoraji committed the case to Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.182 of 1993.
2.5 The learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.11, Gondal camp at Dhoraji perused the evidence in support of the prosecution and framed the charge vide Exh.-1 for the offence under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Plea of each respondents-accused were recorded, wherein they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
2.6 The trial thereafter, commenced with the prosecution side laying down evidence both oral as well as documentary, whereby Prosecution Witness no.1 viz., Labhuben wife of Ravjibhai (Complainant) at Exh.-69, Prosecution Witness No.2 viz., Gokalbhai Juthabhai (relative of the deceased) at Exh.-85, Prosecution Witness No.3 viz., Ravjibhai Valjibhai (father of the deceased) at Exh.-86, Prosecution Witness No.4 viz., Dr.Ravjibhai Nagjibhai Kodhiya at Exh.-89, Prosecution Witness No.5 viz., Yogeshbhai at Exh.-95, Prosecution Witness No.6 viz., Minaben wife of Ashwinkumar Ratanpara (sister of the deceased) at Exh.-97, Prosecution Witness No.7 viz., Morardan Jilubhai Gadhavi (P.S.O.) at Exh.-98 and
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.
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....
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 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....
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 appellate court upheld the trial Court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity for compelling evidence to overturn such decisions.
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
