Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 924

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Khodabhai Ishwarbhai Parmar and Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1382 of 2012
Decided On : 03-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jirga Jhaveri
For the Respondent: Vijay H. Nangesh

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.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498(A), 306, and 114 - Prevention of Dowry Act - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of charges related to dowry harassment and abetment of suicide, citing lack of evidence to prove the allegations. (Paras 1, 3, 12)

(B) Acquittal Appeals - The appellate court has the power to review and reappreciate evidence but must respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere unless the trial court's view is unreasonable. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The deceased, Jayaben, was married to the accused No. 1 and faced alleged harassment for dowry. She consumed poison and died shortly after. The prosecution claimed the accused instigated her suicide, but evidence was insufficient to support this. (Paras 2.1, 2.2)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found no evidence of dowry demands or instigation leading to suicide, leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 11, 12)

Issues: The main issues were whether the accused had harassed the deceased for dowry and whether they abetted her suicide. (Paras 3, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment without direct evidence of instigation do not suffice for conviction under Section 306 IPC. The trial court's findings were upheld as reasonable. (Paras 11, 12)

Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal 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 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2011 on 25.05.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 3 of the Prevention of Dowry Act.

1.1] The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” in the rank and file 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 Jayaben, the accused No. 2 - the younger brother-in-law and the accused No. 3 - the mother-in-law of deceased Jayaben. Deceased Jayaben was married to the accused No. 1 about 6 months prior to the unfortunate incident and all the accused would physically and mentally torture deceased Jayaben to bring a motorcycle from her parent's house. Jayaben was so fed up of the torture and on 5th of April 2011 at around 20.00 hours, in the outskirts of village Vashna Buzarg, she consumed some poisonous substance and expired during treatment. The complaint was registered by Prahladbhai Kalabhai Solanki, the father of deceased Jayaben before the Kheda Town Police Station, which was registered at Kheda Town Police Station I-C.R. No.47 of 2011 under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the IPC.

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 charge-sheet against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Nadiad as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessios Case No. 120 of 2011.

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. 5 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 6 to 8, 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 eight oral evidences and twelve 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 and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable dou