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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 5701

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
STATE OF GUJARATV/sPRAVINBHAI JIVANLAL SOLANKI
R/CR.A/645/2003



IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 645 of 2003 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS ==========================================================

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

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus PRAVINBHAI JIVANLAL SOLANKI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR ROHAN H RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Date : 07/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS)

1. Assailing the judgment dated 06/02/2003 passed in Sessions Case No.37 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar whereby the accused in the said case who were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code were acquitted, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State.

2. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal as per the case of the prosecution may briefly be stated as follows:

2.1. The complainant of the present case is residing at Kalol, District Mehsana with his family and serving as a Head Clerk in Kalol Nagarpalika. He has four daughters and two sons. His eldest daughter namely Vijya @ Vaishali got married on 28/11/1995 with one Pravinbhai Jivanbhai Solanki (A-1) of Motera village as per customs of his caste. From the date of marriage, she was residing at his matrimonial home in joint family. She used to come at Kalol to visit her parents and at that time talked about quarrels with her in-laws and harassment by her in-laws unnecessarily. In the year 1999, she came back to her parents house and when she was asked for reason of the same, she told that she was beaten for not conceiving (not having a child) and asked for gifts of the said rituals before having a child. Accordingly, as per demand of in-laws of Vijya @ Vaishali, husband of Vijya @ Vaishali was given two gold rings and Vijya @ Vaishali was given gold chain and she was sent to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, 04/01/2000, Vijya @ Vaishali came to the house of the complainant and talked about mental and physical harassment given to her by her in-laws for not having a child and told that her life was in danger but the complainant persuaded her and sent her to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, on 14/01/2000, she talked on telephone to the complainant that she wanted to come at her parents house but her in-laws were not permitting her for the same. Thereafter, on 20/01/2000, in the morning at about 7:30 a.m., a phone call was received at the house of his brother informing that his daughter is burnt and sent to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Hearing the same, immediately they reached to the Civil Hospital Ahmedabad at Burns Ward and saw that her daughter was set on bed in burnt condition and there was nowhere from his matrimonial side. At that time, when she was asked for reason of the same, she told that yesterday evening a quarrel was happened between her and her in-laws and she was beaten and therefore she got fed up with the same, however, she was facing the same but today i.e. on 20/01/2000, her in-laws altogether poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.

3. On the said facts, the complainant has filed a complaint with Adalaj Police Station, Chandkheda outpost and the police has registered an offence accordingly. The Investigating Officer has investigated the same and at the end of the investigation, filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 302 and 34 of the IPC before the

2nd Magistrate Court, Gandhinagar.

4. As the offence alleged was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the magistrate court has committed the said case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar for trial. The trial co

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