Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Nathubhai Rasulbhai Kureshi - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 935 of 2008
Decided On : 04-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Bhargav Pandya
For the Respondent: Tejas P. Satta

For abetment of suicide under IPC, clear evidence of instigation or harassment is essential; mere allegations are insufficient.

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 of cruelty and abetment of suicide, finding insufficient evidence of harassment or instigation. (Paras 1, 2.1, 11, 12)

(B) Appeal against acquittal - The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's decision is perverse or unreasonable. (Paras 8, 12)

Facts of the case:
The deceased Yasminaben was married to Idrishbhai and allegedly faced harassment from her in-laws. She died from burn injuries, claiming in her dying declaration that the incident was accidental. (Paras 2.1, 11)

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

Issues: The main issues were whether the accused had harassed the deceased and whether the trial court erred in acquitting them. (Paras 3, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or harassment, which was not present in this case. (Paras 8, 12)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

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 20.11.2007 in Sessions Case No.67 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Judge, Mehsana (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. Yasminaben, the daughter of the complainant Dilawarkhan Ramjumiya Sama (Musalman) was married with Idrishbhai Nathubhai Qureshi and the accused Nos.1 and 2 are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law and the accused No.3 is the younger brother-in-law of Yasminaben. The accused used to physically and mentally harass Yasminaben and on 16.02.2007 around 8:00pm and 8:30pm, Husenbhai, the uncle of the complainant, telephoned him and told him that Yasminaben was burnt and she was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for treatment. He immediately went to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, and saw that his daughter Yasminaben was fully burnt and she told him that she had a fight with the accused and they had refused to let her go to the engagement of her auntie Kankuben at Memadpura and told her that she could go and burn herself and she went and sprinkled kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. The incident had occurred at around 6:00pm and she expired during treatment on 17.02.2007. The complaint was registered by Dilawarkhan Ramjumiya Sama at Kadi Police Station under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the IPC, which was registered at I-C.R.No.47 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.67 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. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.2 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.3 to 4 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 7 witnesses and has produced 16 documentary evidence in support of the case.

2.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, 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 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 dow