IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1080 of 2010 ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus MAHESHBHAI MOHANBHAI VANKAR (BARIYA) & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 MR EE SAIYED(725) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Date : 17/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.03.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.6, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No.139 of 2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 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 the complainant's daughter Rekhaben married Accused No.1 on 01.05.2004 and the marriage initially remained smooth for two years, but thereafter the accused persons started subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty by taunting and beating her, due to which she returned to her parental house and complained. In an attempt to preserve the marriage, she was again sent back, but the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- from her parental side on the pretext that their shop was not running well; as this demand could not be fulfilled, Rekhaben stayed at her parental home for about one and a half years. Later, upon assurance from a villager that Accused No.1 had changed, she was again sent to her matrimonial home, but on 29.03.2008 she returned alleging repeated demand of Rs.50,000/- whereupon the complainant assured arranging the amount within 15 days and sent her back on 04.04.2008. Subsequently, on 08.04.2008, the complainant came to know that Rekhaben had committed suicide by setting herself on fire, following which he lodged a complaint at Vaghodiya Police Station 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.139 of 2008. 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 14 witnesses and also produced 23 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.