Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State Of Gujarat - Applicant
Versus
Vanrajsinh Shivaji Chauhan – Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 2485 Of 2008
Decided On : 17-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Ms Jirga Jhaveri, APP
For the Respondent: Mr S.K. Patel.

In appeals against acquittal, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish abetment of suicide.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 306, and 323 - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide, finding insufficient evidence of harassment or instigation. (Paras 1, 3, 11, 12)

(B) Burden of Proof - In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; the presumption of innocence remains with the accused unless proven otherwise. (Paras 8, 11)

(C) Abetment of Suicide - To establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or incitement leading to suicide, which was not present in this case. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The deceased, Manjula, jumped into a well with her two children after alleged harassment by her husband, the accused. The accused attempted to save them but could only rescue one child. A complaint was filed alleging cruelty and abetment of suicide.

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found no evidence of harassment or instigation by the accused, leading to the acquittal.

Issues: The main issues were whether the accused had committed acts of cruelty or abetment leading to the suicide of Manjula.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction; there must be clear evidence of instigation or incitement to suicide.

Result: Appeal dismissed; 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 14.07.2008 in Sessions Case No.167 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and 3rd Fast Track Court, Modasa (Sabalpur) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood 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. That deceased Manjula was married to the accused about seven years ago, and two children i.e. son Ajay aged five years and daughter Kinjal aged 3½ years were born out of the wedlock and they all were residing at village Bhilkuwa, Taluka Modasa. Two years prior to the incident, the accused started ill-treating Manjula and on 06.06.2007 at around 10:30am, Manjula jumped into the well with her two children, and she and son Ajay aged five years died due to drowning. A complaint was filed by Deepaji Kohyaji Khant on the same day under Sections 498(A), 306, 323 of the IPC, which was registered at Modasa (Rural) Police Station at I-C.R. No.68 of 2007.

2.2 The Investigating Officer sent the dead bodies for postmortem after the inquest panchnama was drawn, drew the necessary panchnamas, recorded the statements of the connected witnesses seized the necessary muddamal and after the FSL reports and the postmortem note were received, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Modasa.

2.3. The accused was 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 statement of the accused was recorded, 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 9 witnesses and has produced 27 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at 47, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code, wherein, the accused stated that he had gone for the funeral of one Sudhaben, who had expired in the village, and when he returned, Manjula told him that she wanted to go to her parental house. He told her that they would go on the next day, and thereafter, received news that Manjula had gone with the children towards the well, and he immediately rushed to the well. That she jumped with her children into the well and he too jumped into the well to save them. That other persons from nearby also gathered and he could save his daughter Kinjal from drowning, but Manjula and son Ajay could not be saved. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine the witnesses on his behalf and after the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused from all the offences.

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 prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and has produced 27 documentary evidences on record in support the case, but the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The learned Trial Court has not considered the various decisions of the Apex Court and has not properly appreciated the ratio laid down by those judgm