IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1967 of 2010 ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus ASHOKBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI GOHIL & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MS. SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3 MR PARTH S TOLIA(5617) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ==========================================================

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 26.08.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahuva, in Sessions Case No.135/2009, 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 deceased, daughter of the complainant, was married to original accused No.1 according to their caste customs. The remaining accused were her in- laws, all residing together. It is alleged that the accused persons continuously harassed the deceased, telling her that she was of bad character, causing severe mental distress. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased committed suicide by jumping into a well.

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.135/2009. 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 13 witnesses and also produced 13 documentary evidences before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment are as under;

Oral Evidences Documentary Evidences

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 it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

7. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss th