Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 728

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Shatubhai Gardabhai Barela - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1258 of 2009
Decided On : 18-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jirga Jhaveri
For the Respondents: M.C. Barot, Tejas M. Barot, Rhea Choksi

In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's decision is perverse or lacks evidence.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498(A) and 306 - Appeal against acquittal - The appellant-State challenged the acquittal of the accused for offences of cruelty and abetment of suicide, arguing that the trial court failed to appreciate evidence and arrived at a perverse conclusion. (Paras 1, 3, 12)

(B) Principles of Appeal - The appellate court has the power to review and reappreciate evidence but must respect the presumption of innocence and not disturb acquittals unless there are compelling reasons. (Paras 8, 12)

Facts of the case:
The accused was married to the deceased, Ruiya, and they had three children. Ruiya committed suicide after alleged harassment by the accused. A complaint was filed by her uncle, leading to the trial. (Paras 2.1, 2.3)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found no evidence of harassment or abetment, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The appellate court agreed with the trial court's findings and reasoning. (Paras 11, 12)

Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused and whether there was sufficient evidence of harassment or abetment. (Paras 3, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under Section 306 IPC; there must be clear evidence of instigation or incitement to suicide. (Paras 9, 12)

Result: Appeal dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused is confirmed.

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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order dated 31.03.2009 in Sessions Case No.64 of 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.5, Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under :

2.1. The accused was married to deceased Ruiya about 7 years prior to the unfortunate incident and they had 3 children out of the marriage. The eldest being 5 years old and the youngest 2 years old. They all lived together at Unaliya village. The accused had mortgaged the jewelry of his wife Ruiya and had used the money for household and land expenses and two days prior to the incident, they had a verbal quarrel. The accused used to mentally and physically harass his wife and as Ruiya was so fed up of the harassment, on 05.03.2008 before 15:00 hours, she consumed the pesticides kept in the house and expired. The complaint was filed by Valsing Gordhanbhai Barela, the uncle of the deceased on 07.03.2008 before the Dy.S.P. Kapadvanj camp at Thasra under Section 498(A) and 306 of the IPC, which was registered I-C.R.No.46 of 2008 with Thasra Police Station.

2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Sessions Case No.64 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. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.4 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and has produced 15 documentary evidence in support of the case.

2.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.40, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the IPC.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of natural justice. That there are directed and indirect evidence connecting the respondents with crime produced in this Court, in spite of the fact, the learned Trial Court, without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, straight way arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the ratio laid down by the judgment of the Apex Court which are applicable t