Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Mustufabhai Sulemanbhai Dhansuriya - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 2008
Decided On : 20-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sneha A. Joshi, Bhargav Pandya
For the Respondents: M.H. Shekhawat, Mohd. Juber Pathan

In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's decision is unreasonable or based on manifest illegality.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498(A), 306, 114 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 7 - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of charges related to dowry harassment and abetment of suicide, finding insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 12, 13)

(B) Burden of Proof - In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused. (Paras 8, 9)

(C) Acquittal - The appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless there is manifest illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment. (Paras 9, 13)

Facts of the case:
The deceased Anjuman was allegedly harassed for dowry by her husband and sister-in-law, leading to her suicide by consuming poison. The complaint was filed by her mother. (Paras 2.1, 2.2)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to establish that the accused had harassed the deceased or instigated her to commit suicide, leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 12, 13)

Issues: The main issues were whether the accused had harassed the deceased and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove abetment of suicide. (Paras 12, 13)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction; there must be clear evidence of instigation or provocation leading to suicide. (Paras 10, 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 13.04.2007 in Sessions Case No.12 of 2007 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (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’) and under Section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Dowry Act’). 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 Anjuman, the daughter of the complainant Nasibaben W/o Abdul Rahim Haji Ahmedabhai, and the accused No.2 is the sister-in-law of the deceased Anjuman. On 24.04.2006 at about 15:15 hours, as both the accused used to physically and mentally harassed the deceased to bring an amount of Rs.50,000/- as dowry and the deceased could not bear the torture, she consumed the zinc phosphide and expired, and hence, the complaint under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Act was filed by the complainant Nasibaben W/o Abdul Rahim Haji Ahmedabhai Umad, the mother of the deceased, which was registered at I-C.R.No.20 of 2006 with Talod 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, the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. was undertaken and the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Sessions Case No.12 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.4 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.5 and 6 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 11 witnesses and has produced 10 documentary evidence in support of the case.

2.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was 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), 306 and 114 of the IPC and Section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Act.

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 passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record. That the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. The learned Trial Court ought to have seen that there are direct and indirect evidence produced on record connecting the respondents with crime and inspite of the fact, the learned Trial Court, without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, has straightway