IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1943 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

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

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus RAJUBHAI SAMSUBHAI BARIA (BHIL) & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Date : 11/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.07.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anand, in Sessions Case No.41 of 2010 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 respondent–original accused No.1 was married to the deceased. During the subsistence of the marriage, the accused allegedly subjected the deceased to continuous physical and mental cruelty, including harassment on suspicion of her character and demands for dowry. It is alleged that due to persistent torture and harassment, which crossed tolerable limits, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with a sari 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.41 of 2010. 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 8 witnesses and also produced 16 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 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. Vide order dated 08.12.2025, this appeal is already abated qua respondent no.1. None appears on behalf of the respondent no.2, though served.

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on