Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, S.V. PINTO
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Tarunkumar Karsanbhai Mayavanshi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. Both the captioned appeals are filed against the acquittal of the respondents-accused, arising from self-same judgment and order dated 30.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case no. 8 of 2012 have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No.1298 of 2013 is filed by the State of Gujarat, whereas Criminal Appeal No.1677 of 2013 is filed by the de facto complainant - Kamlesh Parmar.
3. The learned trial court vide its judgment and order dated 30.07.2013, acquitted the respondents-accused no.2 to 5 for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 304B, 498A read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 3 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, whereas, the respondent-accused no.1 – husband of the deceased was convicted and sentenced for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
4. Being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal, the State as well as the de facto complainant have preferred the present acquittal appeals.
5. The case of the prosecution leading to file this conviction appeal is as follows :
5.1 The marriage of appellant – husband and deceas
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the lack of evidence for cruelty and abetment of suicide, as the suicide note did not substantiate the claims against them.
The court found insufficient evidence to convict the husband under Section 498A for cruelty, emphasizing that the suicide note alone did not establish the required legal threshold.
Court emphasized the necessity of establishing clear evidence of cruelty to invoke presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, reinforcing the presumption of innocence ....
Point of Law : If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused. [Para 39]
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in cases of acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for reliable evidence linking alleged cruelty to suicide.
The requirement of substantial evidence of dowry-related harassment is essential to sustain a conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, which the prosecution failed to demonstrate.
Point of Law : Ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC and even the aiding provision of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, it is a presumption of law on the proof of essential ingredients mentio....
The presumption of innocence, the need for clear evidence to prove guilt, and the reluctance to disturb a finding of acquittal unless it is perverse or unsustainable in law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
