Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Usmangani Abdulgafar Meman - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2008
Decided On : 04-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Bhargav Pandya, Jay J. Jani
For the Respondent: H.D. Chudasama

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.

Headnote:
(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 related to abetment of suicide and cruelty, citing lack of evidence and proper appreciation of facts. (Paras 1, 2, 11, 12)

(B) Appeal against acquittal - The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and should not interfere unless there is manifest illegality or perverse reasoning in the trial court's judgment. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The deceased, Hasinaben, committed suicide due to alleged harassment by her in-laws. The prosecution's evidence was primarily from family members, with no direct evidence of harassment leading to the suicide. (Paras 2.1, 10, 11)

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found no specific evidence of harassment or abetment by the accused, leading to the acquittal. (Paras 11, 12)

Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence sufficiently established the charges of abetment and cruelty against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under Section 306 IPC; there must be clear evidence of instigation or incitement. (Paras 9, 10)

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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order dated 15.10.2007 in Sessions Case No.19 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Ahmedabad (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 the husband, the accused No.2 is the brother-in-law, accused No.3 mother-in-law and accused No.4 is sister-in-law of deceased Hasinaben who was married to the accused No.1 on 14.09.1996. That all the accused used to physically and mentally harass the deceased and on 01.03.2004, as Hasinaben could not bear the torture between 12:00 and 13:00 hours, in House No.1526, Near New Masjid, Rasulabad Colony, Shahalam, she tied a dupatta to the fan and hanged herself and committed suicide. The offence was registered by Usmanbhai Adambhai Unani, the father of deceased Hasinaben on 03.03.2004, which was registered at I-C.R.No.120 of 2004 with Maninagar Police Station under Section 498(A) and 306 and 114 of the IPC.

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.19 of 2006.

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.2 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.3 to 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 10 witnesses and has produced 11 documentary evidence in support of the case.

2.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.36, 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 has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error on record of the case as the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence in its true and proper perspective. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the ratio laid down by the judgment of the Apex Court which are applicable to the facts of the present case and the impugned judgment and order is perverse and suffering from legal and factual error apparent on the record. The learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond the reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has, without giving any specific reason, not discussed th