Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, MAULIK J. SHELAT, JJ.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Kathi Bababhai Nagbhai & Ors. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 253 Of 2000
Decided On : 27-11-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306, 114 - Appeal against acquittal - The Trial Court acquitted the accused for lack of evidence regarding dowry demands and harassment leading to suicide - The appellate court reaffirmed that the acquittal was justified as two reasonable conclusions were possible from the evidence presented. (Paras 10, 11, 13)
(B) Acquittal - Scope of appeal against acquittal - The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only overturn acquittal if the trial court's reasoning is perverse or no reasonable view supports the acquittal. (Paras 10.1, 12)
Facts of the case:
The deceased allegedly committed suicide due to harassment over dowry demands shortly after marriage. The Trial Court found insufficient evidence to support the prosecution's claims.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found no error in the Trial Court's acquittal, affirming that the evidence did not conclusively establish guilt.
Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence supported the charges of dowry harassment and the circumstances surrounding the deceased's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was upheld due to the presence of reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Biren Vaishnav, J.)
1 This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) against the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Amreli (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1990 on 30.12.1999, whereby, the Ld. Trial Court has acquitted the Respondents- Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306, 114 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused as they stood in the rank and file in the original case for the sake of convenience/clarity and brevity.
2 The brief case of the first informant as alleged in the First Information Report which had ultimately resulted in the present appeal is that on 22.10.1989 at around 8:15 hours, because of the harassment and demands made by the accused, the deceased had jumped in the Well situated nearby in the village. The marriage span was merely that of 8 months and therefore, also section 304-B has been invoked at the stage of framing of charge. The prosecution case is that the accused had demanded certain articles in nature of dowry, more particularly after the death of the mother of the deceased and therefore, because of the harassment caused by the respondents, she had committed suicide by jumping in the Well situated nearby.
2.1 In pursuance of the above allegation of the first informant, First Information Report was lodged with the Chalala Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A and 114 of IPC of Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide I-CR No.123 of 1989. Investigating Agency during the course of investigation recorded statements of the witnesses, drawn various panchnamas including panchnama of scene of offence, collected medical papers, etc. for the purpose of proving of the offence.
3. Upon committal of the case to the Ld. Sessions Judge, Amreli, framed charges vide Exh.2 against the Respondents - Accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondents-Accused pleaded not guilty and were tried. The prosecution has examined 10 prosecution witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the Ld. Trial Court. The details of the evidence led by the prosecution are reproduced in the tabular form hereunder:
Relevant Oral Evidences
| PW. No. | Exh No. | Pg.No | Name of the Witness-Nature | Discussion Para-Judgment Pg.no. |
| 1 | 7 | 49 | Dr.J.A. Vithlani-PM Discusses about injury and in cross-examination states that could have happened because of bucket or wooden stand of machine | Para-16, pg.116 |
| 2 | 10 | 56 | Bachubhai Nana Vala- Panch of House- Hostile | Para-17, pg.117 |
| 3 | 13 | 65 | Gabharu Hatiyabhai- Panch of Scene of offence-Well, had gone to place even prior panchnama when incident occurred as resides in same village. | Para-13, pg.118 |
| 4 | 17 | 70 | Jorubhai Jeevabhai-Brother-Complainant-accepts they were poorer to accused’s family and no demand at time of marriage also that first version he got to know was of accident and he believes it was not accident therefore, complaint. | Para-11, pg.107 Para-12,13 pg.108,110, 114 |
| 5 | 20 | 78 | Januben Jagubhaisister in law (Jagubhai’s wife) |
|
| 6 | 22 | 84 | Jagubhai-Brother | Para-12, pg. 113 Para-13, pg.113 |
| 7 | 24 | 88 | Amrabhai Apabhai brother in law of deceased (sister’s husband) accepts all he know is hearsay. | Para-13, pg.115 |
| 8 | 25 | 92 | Chandraben-Sister of deceased | Para-14, pg.116 |
| 9 | 27 | 97 | Raghurajsinh Dilipsinh Zala | Para-19, pg.119 |
| 10 | 28 | 99 | Mr.MJ Pancholi, PSI Chalala | Para-20, pg.119 |
| Exh. No. | Name of Witness | Pg.No. |
| 2 | Charge | 35 |
| 8 | P.M. Note | 52 |
|
| ||
The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and respecting the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the principle that two reasonable views should not disturb the trial ....
Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires direct evidence of intent or proximate acts by accused to abet suicide, with appellate courts deferring to trial findings unless clearly perverse.
The appellate court must uphold a trial court's acquittal unless it is proven to be perverse or unsustainable, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
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 appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere with acquittal unless the trial court's conclusion is unreasonable.
In appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must respect presumption of innocence and confirm if the trial court's conclusions are reasonable based on the evidence presented.
In acquittal appeals, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, with particular emphasis on direct evidence of instigation to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
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 ....
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
