Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Mukeshbhai Atmaram Vaghela (Luhar) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 902 of 2009
Decided On : 27-03-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498(A), 306, 114, 201 - Prevention of Dowry Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 7 - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of charges related to dowry harassment and abetment of suicide due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 1, 2.1, 11, 12)
(B) Acquittal Appeals - The appellate court has full power to review evidence; however, it must respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere with acquittal unless the trial court's view is unreasonable. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Burden of Proof - In cases of abetment of suicide, the prosecution must prove direct or indirect acts of incitement. Mere allegations of harassment without evidence of instigation do not suffice for conviction. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused in a dowry-related case where the victim committed suicide. The trial court found the evidence insufficient to prove the charges. (Paras 1.1, 2.1)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's acquittal was upheld, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the prosecution's claims of harassment or instigation. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court's acquittal was justified based on the evidence presented. (Paras 4, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's judgment, as it had properly appreciated the evidence and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. (Paras 11, 12)
Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
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. 6, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2007 on 18.02.2009, 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 ) as well as Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Dowry Act.
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.
1.2 During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 expired and hence the appeal qua the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was abated.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 The accused No. 1 was married to deceased Pinkyben in the year 2001 and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Pinkyben respectively. Two months after the marriage, the accused would taunt Pinkyben about housework and tell her that she did not bring enough dowry and would demand dowry from her. On 25-07-2006, Pinkyben was so fed up of the mental and physical harassment, that she sprinkled kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze and was immediately rushed to the Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital, Ahmedabad for treatment. That she expired on 26-07-2006 at 01-00 Hrs due to her burn injuries. The complainant Ganpatbhai Maftaji Chauhan (Marvadi), the father of deceased Pinkyben filed the complaint under Sections 498-A , 306 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 before the Additional Police Commissioner, K-Zone, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad City, which was registered at Sola High Court Police Station I-C.R.No.217 of 2016.
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 Ahmedabad (Rural) and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessios Case No. 41 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. A charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 4 and 6, 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 twelve oral evidences and fourteen documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. 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 all 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 a
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn the trial court's decision if it is unreasonable or perverse.
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of proving abetment of suicide beyond reasonable doubt.
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless they are unreasonable or perverse, particularly in acquittal appeals.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable.
In acquittal appeals, unless strong reasons exist, courts maintain respect for the trial court's judgment when reasonable conclusions are possible, preserving the presumption of innocence for the acc....
The appellate court confirmed the acquittal, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and reinforcing the presumption of innocence for the accused.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of clear evidence of abetment for conviction under Section 306 IPC.
The prosecution must provide clear evidence of instigation or provocation for a conviction under abetment of suicide; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
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
