SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
 
Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil & Ors. - Appellants
Versus 
State Of Gujarat – Respondent 
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1131 of 2003
Decided On : 22-08-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Abated, H.B. Shethna.
For the Respondents: Mr. Himanshu Patel APP.

To convict for abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or direct action by the accused proximate to the suicide, demonstrating mens rea; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 304B, 306, and 114 - The court considered charges of cruelty and abetment leading to suicide, ultimately acquitting certain accused due to lack of direct evidence connecting them to the victim's actions. The principle of instigation must reveal clear mens rea and close proximity to the act. (Paras 1, 13-100)

(B) Presumption of abetment - The court examined whether the accused had engaged in conduct proximate to the suicide, determining that mere allegations of harassment were not sufficient as no substantial evidence directly linked the accused to the incitement of suicide. (Paras 11, 73-79)

Facts of the case:
Six appellants were convicted in connection with the suicide of Ushaben and her child, with allegations of harassment leading to the tragic event. The husband’s insistence on abortion was highlighted as a crucial factor. (Paras 1-10, 43-75)

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish direct instigation by the appellants and that the relationships appeared to be somewhat normal prior to the incident. The maternal family’s history and Ullaben’s personal agency were significant in the court's reasoning for acquittal. (Paras 84-98)

Issues: The key questions included the nature of evidence required for establishing abetment of suicide and whether the accused's actions constituted sufficient instigation. (Paras 76-79)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that active roles in instigation must be evident, and if the accused merely represented a contentious familial relationship without direct influence, convictions cannot stand. (Paras 76-90)

Result: Appeals allowed. The judgment and order of conviction were set aside, with the acquitted parties free of charges. (Para 100)

Table of Content
1. conviction details of the accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. details of the deceased and cause of death. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. circumstances leading to the complaint. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. arguments for the defense regarding insufficient evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. defense's questioning of the history and credibility of evidence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. cross-examination revealing inconsistencies in claims. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
7. disputed letters and their significance. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
8. arguments of prosecution regarding abuse and request for funds. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
9. court's observations on abetment and the need for crucial evidence. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37)
10. analysis of definitions of abetment in law. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
11. court's decision based on evidence relevant to section 306 ipc. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
12. outcome of the appeal. (Para 99 , 100)

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Six appellants had challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad on 29.8.2003 in Sessions Case no.59 of 2002 (Old Sessions Case no.119 of 1995). The trial was under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC).

2. Accused no.1-Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil, accused no.2 – Govindbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, accused no.3- Bharatbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, accused no.5 – Bhanuben wife of Maganbhai Muljibhai, accused no.6 – Maltiben wife of Bharatbhai Lavjibhai Gohil were convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced for the simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default stipulation of three months simple imprisonment. Accused no.4 – Naniben wife of Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil convicted under Section 498A IPC was sentenced for one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, one month simple imprisonment.

2.1 For offence under Section 306 IPC, accused no.1- Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil, accused no.2 – Govindbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, accused no.3- Bharatbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, accused no.5 – Bhanuben wife of Maganbhai Muljibhai and accused no.6 – Maltiben wife of Bharatbhai Lavjibhai Gohil were sentenced for seven years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment. Accused nos.1, 2 and 3 were ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment, while accused nos.5 and 6 to undergo simple imprisonment.

2.2 The conviction under Section 304B IPC was ordered against accused no.4 – Naniben wife of Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil and sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, one month simple imprisonment.

2.3 All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and further the learned Trial Court granted set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

2.4 The learned Trial Court Judge only found accused no.4 guilty of offence under Section 304B IPC, while no such offence was found against rest of the accused and in the same way, no offence was found under Sections 498A and 306 IPC against the accused no.4 – mother-in-law.

3. During the course of hearing, by an order dated 30.1.2020, the appeal of appellant/accused no.1– Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil, appellant/accused no.2 - Govindbhai Lavjibhai Gohil and appellant/accused no.4 – Naniben wife of Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil, came to be abated since deceased. Thus, by that order, the appeal of father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband came to be abated.

4. Now the present appeal would be confined for appellants no.3, 5 and 6, as accused nos.3 and 6 of the trial are younger brother-in-law (Diyar) and sister-in-law (Derani), while accused no.5 is sister-in-law (Nanand) of the deceased.

5. The deceased – Ushaben, wife of Govindbhai Lavjibhai Gohil and daughter of Motibhai Bhanabhai Gohil, was married to accused no.2. She was teacher in High School, Dungri. As per the evidence, accused no.2 - Govindbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, husband of





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top