Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Lalaji Prabhuji Thakor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1971 of 2008
Decided On : 18-03-2025
Petitioner Advocates: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)
Respondent Advocate: MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203)
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498(A), 306, 114 and 201 - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused for the aforementioned offences, determining that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 11, 12)
(B) Acquittal principles - The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and should not interfere if the trial court's conclusions are reasonable and plausible. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Evidence evaluation - The trial court found significant contradictions and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution's case was not established. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The accused, husband and sister-in-law of the deceased, were accused of abetting her suicide through mental and physical harassment. The deceased set herself ablaze on 12-11-2007. The complaint was filed on 13-11-2007.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found no evidence of abetment or harassment that led to the suicide, concluding that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof.
Issues: The court addressed whether the evidence sufficiently established the charges against the accused, particularly regarding the alleged illicit relationship and harassment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of abetment, which was lacking in this case.
Result: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the accused.
JUDGMENT :
(S. V. PINTO, J.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Ahmedabad (Rural), Viramgam (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008 on 25.04.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 114 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 The accused No. 1 was the husband of deceased Geetaben and the accused No.2 was the sister-in-law (wife of the brother of the accused No. 1). The accused No. 1 and 2 had illicit relations between them and both of them used to mentally and physically harass deceased Geetaben to such an extent that on 12-11-2007 at around 17:00 Hrs the deceased sprinkled kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. The complainant Hiraben Mavjibhai Thakore, the mother of deceased Geetaben filed the complaint before the Viramgam Town Police Station under Sections 498- A, 306, 201 and 114 of the IPC on 13-11-2007 at 18:30 hours, which was registered at Viramgam Town Police Station I-C.R.No.81 of 2007.
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Viramgam and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008.
2.3] The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 4 and 5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4] The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCES
| Sr. No. | P.W. | Name of the prosecution witnesses | Exh. |
| 1. | 1 | Babubhai Arjanbhai Patel | 9 |
| 2. | 2 | Hiraben Mavjibhai Thakore | 11 |
| 3. | 3 | Jyotsnaben Hathaji Thakor | 13 |
| 4. | 4 | Ramanbhai Mavjibhai Thakor | 14 |
| 5. | 5 | Roopsangji Vishaji Thakore | 15 |
| 6. | 6 | Jadavbhai Kuberbhai Prajapati | 17 |
| 7. | 7 | Jivanbhai Dhudabhai Patani | 18 |
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES
| Sr. No. | Particulars | Exh. |
| 1. | Panchnama of Place of offence | 10 |
| 2. | Complaint | 12 |
| 3. | Analysis Report of FSL | 19 |
| 4. | Wireless Message | 20 |
| 5. | Catalog | 21 |
| 6. | Report of heinous offence | 22 |
| 7. | Movement register | 23 |
| 8. | Yadi of examination of Muddamal | 24 |
| 9. | Receipt of received Muddamal | 25 |
| 10 | Letter of examination of Muddamal | 26 |
| 11 | Report of FSL | 27 |
2.5] After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 8, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and after the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit the accused from all the charges leveled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and ev
