IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 319 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

THE STATE OF GUJARAT Versus HASMUKHRAI VITTHALDAS PALA & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS MANAVI SOLANKI FOR MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.03.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.236 of 1998, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 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 marriage of the deceased -

Meenaben has taken place with accused No.1 prior to eight years from the date of incident and during this period, accused No.1, in abetment of accused No.2, insisted the deceased to bring more and more money from her parental home and thereby she was subjected to cruelty; that as and when she was visiting her parental home, she was complaining regarding ill-treatment and harassment caused by respondents; that number of times, respondents-accused have created such a difficult environment for deceased, the deceased had no other alternate, but to commit suicide and therefore, on 07.09.1998 at 01:50 p.m., the deceased - Meenaben has committed suicide by consuming poisonous at the house of accused No.1 at Kevadiyavadi, Rajkot. 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.236 of 1998. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and also produced 14 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment. The defence also examined 3 witnesses and produced 10 documentary evidence before the trial Court. 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 believable and