IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1287 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus CHANDABEN,W/O.NANSINH RUPSINH PATEL & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4 MS AGNEYA B MANKAD(12768) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.

1,2,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Date : 10/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Godhra in Sessions Case No.52 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the 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 trial Court is that accused No.1 got married with the deceased – Shilpaben - daughter of the complainant on 20.05.2002; and that the accused persons did not like to take food prepared by the deceased, prevented her to use the utensils in the house and compelled her to work and taunted her that she was not able to conceive a child and therefore, original accused No.1 was to be married with some other girl and also demanded dowry by saying that she did not bring motorcycle; and that the deceased was mentally and physically harassed and asked to go back to her parental home; and that on 09.11.2006, due to harassment being meted out at the hands of the accused persons, the deceased Shilpaben (wife of original accused No.1 and daughter of the complainant) committed suicide by hanging herself and thus, 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.52 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 10 witnesses and also produced 11 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 and bel