Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 803

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Rajubhai Chhatrasinh Chavda - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1138 of 2008
Decided On : 05-03-2025

Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Advocates: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)
Respondent Advocate: RULE SERVED(64)

The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's reasonable conclusions in acquittal appeals, intervening only when the trial court's decision is unreasonable or perverse.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498(A), 306, and 114 - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of charges of dowry harassment and abetment of suicide, finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 10, 11)

(B) Acquittal Appeals - The appellate court has the power to review and reappreciate evidence but must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's reasonable conclusions. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The accused were charged after the suicide of Vidhya, who faced alleged harassment from her husband and mother-in-law. The complainant filed a complaint after her death, claiming dowry demands and harassment. (Paras 2.1, 2.3)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found no evidence of harassment that would lead to suicide, and the prosecution's witnesses were largely hostile or unhelpful. (Paras 10, 11)

Issues: The main issues were whether the accused had harassed the deceased and whether their actions constituted abetment of suicide. (Paras 10, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was justified. (Paras 10, 11)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of the case (Para 1)
2. details of the incident (Para 2)
3. state's appeal arguments (Para 3)
4. review of evidence (Para 4 , 5)
5. observations on acquittal appeals (Para 6)
6. principles of appellate review (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
7. conclusion of the court (Para 11)
8. confirmation of acquittal (Para 12 , 13)

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 & Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 231 of 2007 on 11.12.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) , 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as " IPC " for short).

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 married to Vidhya, the daughter of the complainant, Manharbhai Dahyabhai Gohil and the accused No. 2 is the mother-in-law of deceased Vidhya. After her marriage for six months, her matrimonial life was good, but thereafter both the accused would mentally and physically harass Vidhya and ask her to bring money and quarreled with her on trivial issues and as Vidhya could not suffer the torture, on 08.05.2006, she tied the end of her sari to the roof and hanged herself and committed suicide. The complainant Manharbhai Dahyabhai Gohil filed the complaint with the Chhani Police Station under Sections 498(A) , 306 , 114 of the IPC on 08.05.2006, which was registered at I- C.R. No. 73 of 2006

2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and the necessary documents were seized and after completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Vadodara as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No. 231 of 2007.

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. 5 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 6 to 7, 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.	PW’s	Particulars	Exh.
1.	1	Manharbhai Dahyabhai Gohil	9
2.	2	Prabhatbhai Punjabhai Gohil	12
3.	3	Narvatsinh Jinabhai Parmar	18
4.	4	Kesarben Manharbhai Gohil	19
5.	5	Rekhaben Mahendrabhai	20
6.	6	Dr. Vidhyut K Parmar	21
7.	7	Indrasinh Chandrasinh Vadajiya	24

ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES

Sr. No.	Particulars	Exh.
1.	Complaint	10
2.	Application of Manharbhai Dahyabhai	11
3.	Panchnama of place of offence	13
4.	Yadi	14
5.	Inquest Panchnama	15
6.	Yadi	16
7.	Receipt	17
8.	Postmorterm note	22
9.	Yadi	23
10	Yadi to Asst. Commissioner of Police	25

2.5] After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 26, 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 a