IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 152 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus SHAIKH ISMAILBHAI AJITBHAI ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 MR MIHIR H PATHAK(5261) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

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 25.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.92 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 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 the complainant viz. Javedaben Ismailbhai Shaikh (the victim) got married with the respondent - accused before twenty six years of the alleged incident and out of the said wedlock, they had two daughters and two sons and both the daughters were married and residing in their matrimonial house; that her husband used to cause harassment to her since last twenty years, but she was tolerating the same; and that before two-three days of the alleged incident, there was continuous harassment at the hands of the respondent-accused; that on the day of the incident i.e. 01.09.2011, she was alone at home and at that time, the respondent-accused came and started beating her and told her that he would kill her, but, as she could not bear it, she sprinkled kerosene over her body and set herself ablaze; thereafter, she was taken to the Civil Hospital in 108 ambulance, where she gave complaint and during the course of treatment, she succumbed to the burn injuries.

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.92 of 2012. 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 7 witnesses and also produced 14 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