Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Dharmeshbhai @ Budho Natubhai Chauhan on 13 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1972 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DHARMESHBHAI @ BUDHO NATUBHAI CHAUHAN & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 13/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Camp at Botad, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 98 of 2007 on 25.04.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has has extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondents for the Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined offence punishable under Sections 306, 498-A and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short). 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank and file as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 That accused No. 1 is the husband of deceased Geeta and accused No. 2 is mother-in-law of deceased Geeta. The accused No. 1 and the deceased were married for more than five years and since last one year, the accused were physically and mentally harassing the deceased and on 17/12/2007, at around 08:30 pm, the deceased sprinkled kerosene on herself and committed suicide. The complaint was filed by Maganbhai Bhavanbhai Rathod - the father of deceased Geeta at Botad Police Station under Sections 306, 498-A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and which was registered as I-C.R.No. 242 of 2006.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Botad and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined committed to the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar, as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No. 98 of 2007.
2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 4 and 5 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced nine oral evidences and fifteen documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-
examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Kunal B Shah for the respondents-accused. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and has submitted that the prosecution has produced oral evidences of nine witnesses and fifteen documentary evidences but the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. The reasons given by the learned trial Court are shaky and there are no cogent reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the charge against the accused are not proved. The learned trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective. The learned trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable and there was mental and physical harassment to the deceased by the accused and the evidence is sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the offence of Section 306 of the IPC. Learned APP has urged this Court that the impugned judgement and order is improper, perverse and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Kunal B Shah for the respondents has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidences and passed the judgement and order of acquittal which is just and proper and no interference is required in the same and learned advocate for the respondents has urged this court to reject the appeal of the appellant.
Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal.
Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
8. As the accused have been charged with the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, it would be apt to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs The State of Madhya Pradhesh in Criminal Appeal No. 221/2025 (@ SLP(Cr) No. 11868/2023), wherein, in paras 11 to 17 are observed as under:-
11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
"306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly - instigates any person to do that thing or Secondly - engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined and in order to the doing of that thing or Thirdly - intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:-
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarreling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. ..."
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held as under:-
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:- Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record where-from an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
[Emphasis supplied]
9. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. That the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. That there is no Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
10. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 Maganbhai Bhavanbhai Rathod at Exh. 12 and the witness is the complainant and the father of the deceased - Geeta, who has stated that on 17/12/2006 at around 09:30 pm, his sister's son-in-law came to him with his mobile and told him that, there was a phone call from Botad as his daughter Geeta was burnt and he and other relatives went in a Jeep to Botad, where, they found that his daughter was completely burnt and lying down in the house. That she was saying "water-water" but could not reply to any their questions and they took her to the Government Hospital, Padiyad for treatment where doctor told them that the burns were 100% and to take her to the Civil Hospital Botad. That they took her to Sonawala Hospital at Botad and she expired during treatment at 01:00 am. That his daughter had told him that the accused were harassing her but he console her that everything would be right and send her back to her matrimonial home. That, on 21/11/2006 his daughter had telephoned him and told him to take her from there as the accused were Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined physically assaulting her and he went and brought his daughter to his house. That she stayed there about 20 days and at that time she told him that the accused No. 1 was not earning anything and she could not tolerate the harassment any longer. That after 20 days, his son-in-law came and took his daughter to her matrimonial home as she had agreed. That even on 17/12/2006, his daughter had come in the morning train and left in the 7:55 train from Ranpur to Botad and immediately thereafter the incident has occurred. That he had filed the complaint at Botad Police Station which is produced at Exh.13. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in the incident, his son-in-law had also sustained injuries and he was admitted in the hospital for about two months. That, no treatment was taken of any physical harassment given to his daughter earlier. 10.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 Ashokbhai Parshottambhai at Exh: 15 and the witness is the panch- witness of panchnama of place of offence, which is produced at Exh: 16. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and during the cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined accused, the witness has stated that the accused No. 1 is residing separately from his parents.
10.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Hasmukhbhai Kanjibhai at Exh: 19 and Prosecution Witness No. 4 Ayubbhai Hasambhai at Exh: 21. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama, by which, the accused was arrested and the panchnama is produced at Exh. 20. The witnesses have stated that they had affixed their signatures on the panchnama as per the say of the police and nobody was arrested in their presence. 10.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Dr. Pareshkumar Jerambhai Lakhani at Exh: 22. The witness is the Medical Officer at CHC Botad, who has stated that on 18/12/2006 at around 01:00 AM, Geetaben Dharmeshbhai Kodi Patel was brought to the hospital by her father Maganbhai Bhavanbhai and she was fully burnt. That he had thereafter, performed the postmortem on the body of deceased Geeta along with panel Dr. B.H.Chavda and as per the column No. 17 of the postmortem note, the deceased was fully burnt and the cause of death was due to extensive burn injuries.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that there was no external injuries on the body of the deceased and if a person was burnt by cooking on a stove, Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined they would sustain the same type of burn injuries. 10.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Shardaben Vasrambhai at Exh: 29 and the witness is the neighbour of the deceased, who has stated that at the time of incident, she was at home and Bhagwanbhai Naranbhai came to call her and she went to the house of the accused No. 1. The deceased is her niece and they were staying separately and in the house, the accused No. 1 and the deceased were both burnt but she does not know what had happened. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that deceased Geeta was preparing milk for her son and at that time, accidentally, the incident has occurred and while the accused No.1 tried to save her, he too sustained burn injuries. That the deceased did not have any harassment in her matrimonial home. That she is residing next to the accused No. 1. The accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2 were residing separately and the deceased used to frequently come to her house and had never stated that she was harassed in her matrimonial home. That she had informed her brother that Geeta had sustained accidental burn injuries.
10.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7Savitaben Maganbhai at Exh:31. The witness is the mother of the deceased, who has Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined stated that on the day of the incident, her daughter had come to her house with the accused No. 1 and thereafter she had left for Botad. Her sister-in- law called and told her that her daughter was burnt and she told her husband and other relatives and they went to Botad by Jeep and thereafter to Padiyad. That her son-in-law was also burnt as he was trying to save her daughter. That whenever her daughter Geeta would come to her parental house, she would tell them that she was very happy and she did not have any harassment in her matrimonial home. That she had never complaint against her in law and the police had recorded her statement. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned APP, but nothing to support the case of the prosecution have come on record.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she had received the phone call to immediately come to Botad as her daughter-in-law and son-in-law were accidentally burnt. That she had seen both of them burnt and her daughter died during treatment and her funeral rites were performed by everyone together. That her son-in-law was doing the work of polishing diamonds and her daughter did not have any harassment from her in laws. 10.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Shardaben Tejabhai Jadeja at Exh. 38 and the witness was the Police Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined Inspector, Mahila Police Station at the time of incident. The accidental death was registered and the witness had investigated the same.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that during the investigation of the accidental death, the present offence was registered and she had recorded the complaint, during which, it was found that on the day of the incident, the deceased had come to her parental house. It was also found that the accused No. 1 and the deceased were staying separately from the parents of the accused No. 1 and the accused no. 1 had also sustained burn injuries and his condition was very serious. That after the parents of the deceased came from Botad, they did not file any complaint and Shardaben the aunt of the deceased was residing next to the house of the deceased.
10.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9 Bhagvanbhai Ramjibhai Kanani at Exh. 42 and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure that was undertaken by him during the investigation. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the accused No. 1 had sustained grievous burn injuries and while the accused No. 1 was arrested, there was burnt marks on various parts on his body, which was noted in the panchnama.
Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
11. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the infirmities in the evidence have come on record and there is no iota of evidence that the deceased- Geeta was being harassed in her matrimonial home. In the evidence, it has emerged that the accused No. 1 who is husband of deceased Geeta was residing separately along with the deceased and the accused No.2 mother in law of the deceased was residing separately with her husband. That on the day of the incident, deceased Geeta had come to her parental home and she had left the parental house to go to her matrimonial home by train and after she reached home, the incident has occurred. That if there was any extreme physical or mental harassment to the deceased, she would have refused to go back to her matrimonial home and Prosecution Witness No. 7 Savitaben Maganbhai examined at Exh. 31, who is the mother of the deceased, who has categorically stated that the deceased was residing happily in her matrimonial home and there was no harassment to the deceased. The evidence that has emerged on record is that the accused No. 1 had also sustained grievous burn injuries and he was admitted to the hospital with burn injuries. In the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exh. 16, a Wick Stove (primus) was lying on its side and clothes quilts and mattress was found burnt and the wick stove and half burnt pieces of clothes were seized by the Investigating Officer as per the Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined instructions of the office of FSL. It appears that the deceased sustained burn injuries while she was cooking and there is nothing on record to suggest that any gallon of kerosene was found at the place of incident, to suggest that the deceased sprinkled kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. In the evidence, there is no iota of evidence of harassment meted out to the deceased to such an extent that she would put an end to her life and there are no direct or indirect evidences that the accused abetted, incited or provoked the deceased to put an end to her life.
12. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Mahendra Awase (supra), the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1972/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
13. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Camp at Botad, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 98 of 2007 on 25.04.2008, is hereby confirmed.
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 23:07:40 IST 2025