IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14 of 2011 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus DEVNARAYAN @ ATALBIHARI PRAHLAD SHAHU & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Date : 12/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.09.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Surat, in Sessions Case No.216 of 2007, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the Sessions Court is that the prosecution’s case centers on the death of Kalpanaben and her minor daughter - Shalini, following years of domestic cruelty. Married to accused No.1 in June 1999, Kalpanaben was allegedly subjected to persistent physical and mental torture by her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law over demands for a motorcycle, a gold chain, and ₹50,000 in dowry. Despite50,000 in dowry. Despite several accounts of abuse reported to her father, Kalpanaben returned to her matrimonial home in February, 2004, based on her husband's assurance of safety. However, on 07.04.2004, the complainant was informed that Kalpanaben had set herself on fire, resulting in her death and the death of her daughter. The complainant asserts that the relentless harassment by the accused left Kalpanaben with no choice, but to take her own life and that of her child. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-accused.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge- sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.216 of 2007. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and also produced 18 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment.

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable