IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Bhaveshkumar @ Devendra Parshuram Chaudhari and Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1758 of 2008
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(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 abetment of suicide and cruelty, finding insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 12, 13)
(B) Burden of Proof - In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and if two reasonable conclusions are possible, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (Paras 9, 12)
(C) Principles of Abetment - To establish abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or incitement by the accused, which must be proximate to the act of suicide. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, Rupaliben, married to accused No.1, allegedly committed suicide due to harassment for dowry. The father of the deceased filed a complaint after her death, claiming mental torture by the accused. (Paras 2.1, 3.4)
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found no evidence of cruelty or instigation leading to suicide, and the acquittal was upheld due to lack of convincing evidence. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: The main issues were whether the accused had committed acts of cruelty or abetment leading to the suicide of Rupaliben. (Paras 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary elements of abetment and that the Trial Court's findings were reasonable and justified. (Paras 12, 13)
Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case (Para 1) |
| 2. details of the complaint (Para 2) |
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 18.03.2008 in Sessions Case No.85 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC ’). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they 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 No.1 was married to the deceased Rupaliben on 26.04.2007 and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law and the accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Rupaliben respectively. The complainant Narayan Devram Chaudhari, the father of deceased Rupaliben, filed a complaint on 30.06.2007 stating that he had received a phone call from Yashwantbhai Chaudhari and he along with his wife and the other family members left from Khedgam, Taluka Chalisgam, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra State and came to Ahmedabad on 29.06.2007 at around 3:00 am to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. That all the accused were present and the post-morterm on the dead body of his daughter Rupaliben was done and they concluded the funeral rites. That they went to Radhey Tenements, Surendranagar and saw the place of incident and saw that the quilts in the house were burnt and they found that his daughter Rupaliben had died due to burn injuries. That all the accused used to mentally harass his daughter and demand furniture and other articles and money from her and as she could not bear the torture, , she committed suicide on 28.06.2007 at Surendranagar and the complaint was registered on 30.06.2007 at the Surendranagar City Police Station underSections 306 , 498(A) and 114 of the IPC , which was registered at I-C.R.No. 107 of 2007.
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 therefore, 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.85 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 was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.6 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.7 to 11 respectively, 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 16 witnesses and has produced 33 documentary evidence in support of the case.
2.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.69, the further statements 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 306, 498(A) and 114 of the IPC.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for abetment of suicide without clear evidence of instigation.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, clear evidence of instigation or incitement is required, which was not proven in this case.
The appellate court upheld the presumption of innocence, emphasizing that an acquittal should not be overturned without compelling evidence demonstrating guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if there is clear evidence of illegality or perverse reasoning in the trial court's judg....
Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires proof of direct instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid in suicide; generalized harassment allegations without proximate acts inciting suicide are insuff....
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's judgment is perverse or lacks proper reasoning.
For abetment of suicide under IPC, clear evidence of instigation or harassment is essential; mere allegations are insufficient.
The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under IPC Sections 306 and 498-A; clear evidence of instigation is necessary.
In appeals against acquittal, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish abetment of suicide.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.