Gujarat High Court
Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 1 August, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1131 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=====================================================
LAVJIBHAI SUKHABHAI GOHIL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=====================================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Appellant(s) No. 1, 2, 4
MR HB SHETHNA (2436) for the Appellant(s) No. 3, 5, 6
MR HIMANSHU PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 01/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Six appellants had challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad on 29.8.2003 in Sessions Case no.59 of 2002 (Old Sessions Case no.119 of 1995). The trial was under
Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).Page 1 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
2. Accused no.1-Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil, accused no.2 - Govindbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, accused no.3- Bharatbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, accused no.5 - Bhanuben wife of Maganbhai Muljibhai, accused no.6 - Maltiben wife of Bharatbhai Lavjibhai Gohil were convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced for the simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default stipulation of three months simple imprisonment. Accused no.4 - Naniben wife of Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil convicted under Section 498A IPC was sentenced for one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, one month simple imprisonment. 2.1 For offence under Section 306 IPC, accused no.1- Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil, accused no.2 - Govindbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, accused no.3- Bharatbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, accused no.5 - Bhanuben wife of Maganbhai Muljibhai and accused no.6 - Maltiben wife of Bharatbhai Lavjibhai Page 2 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Gohil were sentenced for seven years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment. Accused nos.1, 2 and 3 were ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment, while accused nos.5 and 6 to undergo simple imprisonment.
2.2 The conviction under Section 304B IPC was ordered against accused no.4 - Naniben wife of Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil and sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, one month simple imprisonment.
2.3 All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and further the learned Trial Court granted set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). 2.4 The learned Trial Court Judge only found accused no.4 guilty of offence under Section 304B IPC, Page 3 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined while no such offence was found against rest of the accused and in the same way, no offence was found under Sections 498A and 306 IPC against the accused no.4 - mother-in-law.
3. During the course of hearing, by an order dated 30.1.2020, the appeal of appellant/accused no.1- Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil, appellant/accused no.2 - Govindbhai Lavjibhai Gohil and appellant/accused no.4 - Naniben wife of Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil, came to be abated since deceased. Thus, by that order, the appeal of father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband came to be abated.
4. Now the present appeal would be confined for appellants no.3, 5 and 6, as accused nos.3 and 6 of the trial are younger brother-in-law (Diyar) and sister-in-law (Derani), while accused no.5 is sister-in-law (Nanand) of the deceased. Page 4 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
5. The deceased - Ushaben, wife of Govindbhai Lavjibhai Gohil and daughter of Motibhai Bhanabhai Gohil, was married to accused no.2. She was teacher in High School, Dungri. As per the evidence, accused no.2 - Govindbhai Lavjibhai Gohil, husband of the deceased was also a teacher in G.V.D. High School.
6. Dead body of Ushaben, along with two and a half year daughter-Amisha, were found floating in the well. The complainant was informed about death of Ushaben by two persons who had come on the motorcycle and therefore, the complainant, Pravin, Girish, PW4 - Dharmishthaben - sister- in-law (Bhabhi) and PW5 - Hansaben Kiritbhai, (sister-in-law) of the deceased, went to Lilapore to the house of accused no.1. There, they met Ramanbhai, who told them that Ushaben and Amisha both were dead and were taken to the hospital. The complainant inquired as to how that had happened. Accused no.2 - husband stated Page 5 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined that after taking their meals, they had gone to bed, and that day morning at about 05:00 a.m., there was rain, so he woke up to keep woods safe, at that time, he found Manisha and Amisha both were not in bed. After inquiry also, they could not find them, but A5 sister - Bhanuben Maganbhai informed A2 that the dead body of Usha and Amisha were floating in the well. The accused no.2 informed the complainant that Ushaben was pregnant, and there was quarrel regarding abortion and taking tablets and therefore, she died jumping in the well.
7. Postmortem of Ushaben Govindbhai was conducted on 28.5.1995 between 14.35 hrs. to 15.50 hrs. Exh.17 - postmortem of the deceased shows the cause of death, due to cardio respiratory failure due to asphyxia due to drowning. The column no.17 shows CLW over occipital region of size 3X1 cm muscle deep oblique starting from right side to left going downward. Columns 18 Page 6 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined shows no body injury and in column no.20, semi digested food matter was recorded, bladder empty, uterus, pregnant with 8-10 weeks size foetus i cord placenta seen.
8. Thus, the postmortem note records that at the time of death, the deceased Ushaben was carrying child of 8-10 weeks, which was alive with umbilical cord placenta.
9. The complaint at Exh.24 is dated 28.5.1995. The charge framed shows that the deceased Ushaben along with two and a half year daughter committed suicide on 28.5.1995. In the complaint Exh.24, the complainant has given details about inquiring from the son-in-law, who had informed him about the quarrel on earlier night with regard to abortion and taking tablets.
10. Further, in the complaint Exh.24, the complainant has stated that his daughter Ushaben had married 6-7 years ago with Govindbhai Page 7 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Lavjibhai as per the custom of their community. After marriage, for about one year, they stayed happily. Thereafter, often his son-in-law would beat his daughter for not bringing sufficient things during the marriage. The complainant has further stated that his daughter's brother-in- law - Bharatbhai would hold and beat her. Such facts Ushaben would state whenever she visited the parental house. After the marriage, his son- in-law and Bharatbhai often would beat his daughter. In between for eight months, they had brought back his daughter Ushaben home and since Ushaben was a teacher at Dungri, she used to commute from his house. Thereafter, they had settled the dispute. The complainant further states that for certain period, they behaved well and thereafter, his son-in-law started harassing his daughter and mother-in-law Naniben and father-in-law - Lavjibhai also started harassing. They were saying that she was not preparing food properly and were asking her, to Page 8 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined return back to her father's house. Whenever he would visit the daughter, his daughter Ushaben would say that his father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law - Bharatbhai and sister-in- law - Maltiben would often beat her and whenever her sister-in-law (Nanand) Bhanuben would come from Surat, she would abuse her asking to bring money from her father's house.
11. In the complaint, the father has given the cause of suicide by his daughter - Ushaben with the grandchild - Amisha by jumping in the well. The complainant stated that it was because of his son-in-law, brother-in-law - Bharatbhai, sister- in-law - Maltiben, parents-in-law and Nanand Bhanuben who would often rebuke her and beat her and because of that cruelty, she has died and for that purpose, he had given the complaint. Thereafter, the complaint further notes that his son-in-law had demanded Rs.50,000/- for purchasing a plot and he had given Rs.25,000/- Page 9 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined while he could not make arrangement for rest of the money.
12. At Exh.19, the cause of death of the daughter -
Amisha was recorded after the postmortem conducted on 28.5.1995 between 3.50 to 5.00 p.m., which was because of cardio respiratory failure due to asphyxia owing to drowning.
13. Learned advocate Mr. H.B. Shethna, while arguing for appellants no.3, 5 and 6 submitted that prima facie, there would not be any case against the present appellants as Devar, Devrani and Nanand. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that appellant no.5 - sister-in-law (Nanand) was staying at Surat and was serving as a teacher in a primary school. Occasionally, she used to visit Lilapore Village. Advocate Mr. Shethna, referring to the charge framed by the learned Trial Court below Exh.1, submitted that the matrimonial life is shown of six years and the allegations are only of last two years prior to Page 10 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined death. Alleging that all the six accused in abetment were demanding money as dowry and with an intention to extract the money, deceased - accused nos.1 and 2 i.e. father-in-law and the husband were beating Ushaben and the rest of accused nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 were mentally and physically harassing her by rebuking and would ask her to bring money from her parental house and would force deceased-Ushaben to return back to her parents home. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the allegation against all the accused by the charge framed was of demand of dowry from the deceased - Ushaben and by mental and physical harassment, they had instigated for the commission of suicide, and that were alleged that the mental and physical harassment was to the extent of driving Ushaben to cause grave injuries or put her life to danger and that because of the harassment of all the accused, Ushaben on 28.5.1995 along with her daughter of two and a half year had committed suicide by Page 11 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined jumping into the well.
14. Learned advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the charges were framed under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 read with Section 114 IPC. All the accused were acquitted from the charges under Section 304B IPC, which is for dowry death. Advocate Mr. Shethna thus stated that if the case of dowry demand has not been believed, then, the said cause for inciting the suicide would not survive and hence, submitted the case under Section 498A and 306 of the IPC would fall and should not have been believed by the Trial Court.
15. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that if the case of dowry death is not believed, then, there would be no motive for committing cruelty, and further contended that whether motive as alleged was sufficient ground for the deceased - Ushaben to take the extreme step. Advocate Mr. Shethna contended that as per the prosecution case, the issue arose in last two years of marriage and Page 12 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined the evidence on record suggest and prove that the deceased - Ushaben was staying in joint family of the accused and she wanted independent house and that had arose the dispute, which was resolved and the decision was taken amicably by deceased accused no.2 - husband of Ushaben and Ushaben to stay in a separate apartment. The documentary evidence in the form of letter and the deposition of the brother - PW3 who is a Professor - Kiritkumar Motilal would corroborate the fact.
16. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that as per the deposition of the complainant - father and the brother - PW3, Ushaben had come back to the parental house for 5-6 months, which as per the record would be upto 3.1.1995, when settlement took place. Residing for five months at the parental house, it was settled that they would have their own apartment, separate from the joint family. Mr. Shethna submitted that the Page 13 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined deceased Ushaben, in letter to the brother, is not stating of any scarcity of money. No reference, to get money from any of the members of the parental family had been made by the deceased. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that both the husband and wife were earning members. They out of their marriage life had two children-son Mehul aged about five years and daughter - Nisha who was two and a half years at time of the death.
17. Referring to the evidence of the father of the deceased, as PW2 - Motibhai Bhanabhai Gohil, aged about seventy at the time of giving his deposition, Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the father was cobbler and he had two wives, the first wife - Gomtiben and out of that wedlock, he had two sons and a daughter. Son - Dr. Pravin against whom the complainant had filed a case for maintenance in Bardoli Court. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that Dr. Pravin later on Page 14 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined committed suicide by injecting poison. Dr. Pravin had also married twice. The first wife - Gangaben of Dr. Pravin had accused Dr. Pravin and the complainant i.e. the father-in-law - Motibhai of beating her. The second wife - Dharmishtha of Dr. Pravin was examined as PW4 at Exh.49, had turned hostile during the trial. Second son Mahendra of the complainant was mentally unstable and passed away in London. Daughter - Jyotsna was married and pre-deceased Ushaben by self-immolating and it was a suspected case of suicide. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the history of the family would otherwise show some cause of genetic disorder, which may not be denied for deceased Ushaben.
18. Advocate Mr. Shethna stated that the complainant's second marriage was with Laxmiben who died on 9.12.1998 during her mental unstability and deceased - Ushaben is from the said branch. The complainant out of the marriage Page 15 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined with Laxmiben had two sons and daughter Ushaben. Son - Kirit was examined as PW3 who married Hansaben, whose deposition was recorded as PW5 at Exh.50, while son Girish was not examined, though Dr. Pravin, his wife Dharmishthaben, brother of deceased Ushaben, Girish, and Hansaben - PW5, wife of son Kirit had gone to Lilapore hearing about the death of Ushaben.
19. Referring to the important dates and events, Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that as per the evidence, it can be said that in the year 1989, deceased Ushaben married accused no.2 - Govind Lavji Gohil. The charges framed showed that the issues arose in the last two years. On 3.1.1995, accused no.2 - husband took the deceased back with him from her father's home with an understanding to stay separately. 12.1.1995 is a letter from the deceased to her brother - Kirit- PW3, where the deceased stated that on 3.1.1995, she had gone back to her husband's house after Page 16 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined settlement and that they were going to live separately and had settled for a flat of Rs.2,51,000/-, for which, they were to deposit Rs.50,000/-. Deceased had made no demand for the same from her brother - Kirit, nor there is any reference of such demand by any of the accused. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that on 10.5.1995, Ushaben and her husband - accused no.2 came to the parental home of the deceased to attend the Shrimant ceremony of PW5 i.e. Bhabhi, wife of PW3 - Kirit, where they stayed together for about 4-5 days and as per the record, they returned back on 14.5.1995. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that till 14.5.1995, there was no dispute between the husband and wife or the family members, nor with the present appellant as Diyar, Derani and Nanand, and deceased passed away on 28.5.1995. Thus, Advocate Mr. Shethna stated that it would be now necessary to know as to what had transpired within these two weeks from 14.5.1995 Page 17 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined to 28.5.1995.
20. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the only cause that now becomes relevant was the quarrel between the husband and wife on the previous night of the death, where the husband had asked the deceased to abort the foetus and to consume pills. Advocate Mr. Shethna contended that the allegation of demand of money is baseless and without any corroboration on record. It is got up and is afterthought, where it could be perused from the complaint that the allegation of demand of Rs.50,000/- by the son-in-law and the fact that the complainant had given Rs.25,000/- and for rest of the money, no arrangement could be made was written in the complaint later on, which becomes quite obvious in the complaint Exh.24.
21. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the plot was actually purchased in the name of the brother PW3, which was by deceased - Ushaben and the Page 18 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined payment of Rs.25,000/- was made by Ushaben, which gets reflected in the document at Mark-A. The dispute between the husband and wife was for having a separate residential house away from the joint family. Ushaben had also made investment in postal insurance and had made her brother PW3 and son - Mehul the nominees. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the letter Exh.34 dated 23.3.1995 by the complainant- father-in-law to accused no.2 - the son-in-law would rather show that the father-in-law had sought assistance from the son-in-law in the case, which was against him. Advocate Mr. Shethna also stated that Exh.48 written by the daughter-Ushaben dated 12.1.1995 to her brother would clarify, that the disputes were between the husband and wife and the present appellants were nowhere involved between them. The letter dated 17.4.1995 at Exh.35 was by the complainant father-in-law to daughter and son-in-law referring to the fact of Dr. Pravin and his wife Page 19 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined visiting accused no.2, the letter specifically refers to the son-in-law, and further the letter had invited the parents-in-law as guest in the Shrimant ceremony of PW5 at Surat asking them to bring the grandson Mehul along with them, and further informing that his son - Girish would visit them on 22.4.1995 adding the remembrance of son - Kirit and daughter-in-law - Hansaben. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the letter at Exh.36 would now become relevant to examine the relation between both the in-laws. The letter dated 2.5.1995 is addressed to the son- in-law and the daughter as well as Vevai and Vevan i.e. the parents-in-law of the daughter, Lavjibhai and Naniben as well as appellant/accused - Bharatbhai and Maltiben and all the children as well as appellant - Bhanuben (Nanand) and her husband as Jamai Maganbhai and their children. The letter was addressed inviting all of them to join the Shrimant ceremony of PW5 on 11.5.1995 and Satyanarayan Page 20 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Katha on 10.5.1995. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that had there been any dispute with regard to money or any demand of money, then, the reference would have been there in the letter at Exh.36 written by the complainant, while it was inviting the whole of the family members to join the Shrimant ceremony and Satyanarayan Katha on 10.5.1995 and 11.5.1995.
22. Referring to letter Exh.39 dated 19.4.1993, Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that in the year 1993, Exh.39 was the letter addressed to the accused no.2, wherein the son-in-law was informed by the father-in-law about the work in progress of building the house, prior to monsoon and also the fact that on 18.4.1993, there was an arrangement for meeting of boy and girl for marriage referring that the girl is from Puna village of Surat, and further the mother-in-law sending the son-in-law her regards. Advocate Mr. Shethna thus submitted that if there had been Page 21 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined issue of demand of money, then, no father-in-law would have addressed the son-in-law very fondly.
23. Advocate Mr. Shethna has referred to Exhs.40, 41 and 42 dated 24.8.1993, 21.10.1992 and 17.7.1992 respectively to state that even in the years 1992 and 1993, the relations were cordial and the father-in-law had written letters to the son-in-law - Exhs.41 and 42 referring about the complainant's son - Mahendra of England and sons-Kirit and Girish and also about the condition of Dr. Pravin and wife of Pravin, Gangaben assisting his son Pravin and wife of the complainant. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the letters were also addressing the parents of the son-in-law (A2).
24. Referring to Exh.40 dated 24.8.1993, Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that it was addressed to the daughter - Ushaben at Lilapore, also referring to the son-in-law and the grand children, was with the information about his Page 22 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined son- Maganbhai at England and the letter also bears the address of Maganbhai, requesting the daughter and the grand child to write letter to maternal uncle.
25. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that those letters in the years 1992, 1993 coupled with the letters of 1995 would clarify that there was no such issue of dowry demand, nor was there any other dispute in the family. The only cause that had come on record is that the day earlier to suicide, the son-in-law had asked the daughter - Ushaben to remove the foetus and to take pills.
26. Advocate Mr. Shethna stated that documents Exhs.25 to 31 produced on record, stating to be the letters of deceased - Ushaben, written to the complainant father all become very much doubtful since the father has not informed about any such letters to the police, and though the father in his deposition stated that his daughter would write inland letters and through Page 23 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined covers, no such inland letters, nor covers had been produced to create authenticity for the documents at Exhs.25 to 31, which almost all are of the year 1991 and few of them are undated. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the handwriting of the deceased - Ushaben had not been proved by the prosecution. Whether those letters had been handed over to the police was not proved and further stated that the circumstances itself would make the documents Exhs.25 to 31 doubtful, and further submitted that how the harassment alleged in the documents at Exhs.25 to 28 would disappear from the year 1992 to 1995.
27. Advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the ingredients of Section 498A and Section 306 of IPC do not get attracted in the present matter since immediate to the commission of suicide, there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation of cruelty against the present Page 24 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined appellants, as Devar, Devrani and Nanand. The evidence shows that dispute was about the separation of residential house with the husband, and about the pregnancy, which deceased Usha was carrying. Submitting that there was no proximity of cruelty alleged at the time of suicide, learned advocate Mr. Shethna urged to allow the appeal.
28. Learned advocate Mr. Shethna has relied upon the decisions in the cases of Jani Jainendrakumar v. State of Gujarat, 2024 (3) GLR 2226, Nareshkumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 (3) SCC 573, Krishan Kumar Malik. v. State of Haryana, 2011 (7) SCC 130, Jagdish Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2025 SC 2423, Sadashiv Dhondiram Patel v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 (1) SCC 275 and Ravi v. State of Punjab, 2025 (3) SCC 584.
29. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Himanshu Patel very vehemently contended that it is a clear case of harassment, where the letters between Exhs.25 to Page 25 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined 31 would clarify the harassment by the present appellants and that they were equally responsible for the death of Ushaben. Learned APP Mr. Patel has referred to almost all the letters from Exhs.25 to 31, and submitted that they came from the custody of the complainant- father. Mr. Patel stated that corroboration of deposition of the complainant-father can be found from the FIR. Mr. Patel stated that since the matrimonial life was of six years, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is required to be drawn. Mr. Patel stated that the analysis of evidence in the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court is in accordance with law and thus, stated that the appeal is required to be dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence.
30. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shethna for the appellants and learned APP Mr. Himanshu Patel for the State and perused the record. Page 26 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
31. Except accused No.5, the mother-in-law, Naniben Lavjibhai, all were acquitted from the charges for dowry death under Section 304B of IPC. Section 113B is for presumption as to dowry death. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is for presumption as to abetment of suicide by married woman.
32. Section 113A and Section 113B of the Evidence is reproduced hereinunder for understanding the intricacies of law:
"113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman - When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.Page 27 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
113-B-Presumption as to dowry death
- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code."
33. In the case of Hans Raj v. State of Haryana, [(2004) 12 SCC 257], Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"12. The question then arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant can be convicted of the offence under Section 306 IPC with the aid of the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Any person who abets the commission of suicide is liable to be punished under Section 306 IPC.
Section 107 IPC lays down the ingredients of abetment which includes instigating any person to Page 28 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined do a thing or engaging with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of a thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, or intentional aid by any act or illegal omission to the doing of that thing. In the instant case there is no direct evidence to establish that the appellant either aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide or entered into any conspiracy to aid her in committing suicide. In the absence of direct evidence the prosecution has relied upon Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act under which the court may presume on proof of circumstances enumerated therein, and having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that the suicide had been abetted by the accused. The explanation to Section 113-A further clarifies that cruelty shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860..."
13. Unlike Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, a statutory presumption does not arise by operation of law merely on proof of the circumstances enumerated in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has first to establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from Page 29 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined the date of her marriage and that her husband (in this case) had subjected her to cruelty. Even if these facts are established the court is not bound to presume that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. Section 113-A gives a discretion to the court to raise such a presumption, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, which means that where the allegation is of cruelty it must consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected, having regard to the meaning of the word "cruelty" in Section 498-A IPC. The mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband, does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. The court is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which has to be considered by the court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. The law has been succinctly stated in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618.
"12. This provision was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-1983 to meet a social demand Page 30 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the four corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to anyone outside the occupants of the house. However, still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113-A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113-A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression 'may presume' suggests.
Secondly, the existence and availability of the abovesaid three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the court shall have to Page 31 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined have regard to 'all the other circumstances of the case'. A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression -- 'the other circumstances of the case' used in Section 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase 'may presume' used in Section 113-A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says -- 'Whenever it is provided by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it."
34. Section 113A of the Evidence Act makes provision to take the meaning of cruelty, as has been given under Section 498A of IPC for considering the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. To prove the charge of Section Page 32 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined 498A of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the husband or his relative subjected such woman to cruelty. The term 'cruelty' is explained in two parts of Section 498A. The first part speaks of willful conduct of a nature that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the life, limb or health, either physical or mental of such woman. The second part of Section 498A provides for harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security on account of this failure or any person related to her to meet such demand.
35. Section 498A of IPC does not attract every harassment or every type of cruelty. The prosecution has to prove that the willful conduct and the harassment were with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demand of dowry.
Page 33 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
36. The marriage span was for the period of six years. The provision of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act would get applicable for presumption to abetment of suicide by a married woman provided cruelty is proved. It states that if a married woman commits suicide within seven years of the marriage and it is shown that her husband or his relative subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume that the suicide was abetted by the husband or his relatives. Section 113A of the Evidence Act introduces a presumption, meaning the Court can infer that the suicide was abetted if the conditions are met. The stage of application of Section 113A would arise only when there is initial evidence of any act on part of accused which would fall within the definition of cruelty. 36.1 Unlike Section 113B of the Evidence Act, a statutory presumption does not arise by operation of law merely on proof of Page 34 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined circumstances enumerated in Section 113A of the Act. Under Section 113A, the prosecution has first to establish that the woman concern committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or any relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty. The Court is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case; one of the circumstances which has to be considered by the Court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such nature, as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman, as observed in the case of Hans Raj (Supra).
36.2 The presumption under Section 113A is not mandatory, it is only permissive, as the expression used in Section 113A is 'may presume'. The existence of the circumstances (i) the woman has committed suicide (ii) suicide has Page 35 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage (iii) the husband or his relatives who are charged, has subjected her to cruelty shall not like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn, before the presumption may be drawn, the Court shall have regard to all other circumstances of the case. The other circumstances of the case used in Section 113A suggests the need to reach a cause and effect relationship between cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498A IPC and Section 113A of the Evidence Act. If reasonable doubts exist about the complicity of the accused in respect to the offences allege, then benefit of doubt would be in favour of the accused. 36.3 While presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act is presumption of law. The Page 36 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined legislature in its wisdom has used the word 'shall', thus making a mandatory application on the part of the Court to presume that the death has been caused by the person, who has subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry. It is unlike the provision of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, where a discretion has been conferred upon the Court, wherein it has been provided that the Court may presume abetment of suicide by a married woman.
37. In the present case, depositions have been given by the family members; (i) father - Motibhai Banabhai Gohil (PW2) (ii) brother - Kiritkumar Motilal (PW3) (iii) Sharmisthaben W/o. Dr. Pravin (PW4), (iv) Hansaben W/o Kiritbhai Motibhai (PW5), (v) Investigating Officer (PW6) and (vi) Dr. Jayant Jhaveri (PW1).
38. Dr. Jayant Jhaveri (PW1) was examined to prove the postmortem report of both, deceased Ushaben and child Anisha. The postmortem was conducted Page 37 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined of Ushaben on 28.5.1995 between 2.35 to 3.50 hours and of child Amisha from 3.50 to 5.00 hours. The cause of death of both the deceased, as referred hereinabove, was due to cardio respiratory failure due to asphyxia due to drowning.
38.1 The Doctor proved the documents Exhs.17, 18 and 19, two postmortem notes and a certificate. The postmortem, Exh.17 of Ushaben made the reference of uterus with pregnancy of eight-ten weeks' size foetus with cord placenta seen. The evidence, thus, proves that at the time of death, Ushaben was carrying a foetus. The cause referred by the complainant-father, having inquired from the son-in-law (A2) was the quarrel between the couples to remove the foetus and for consuming pills. The husband- accused (A2) stated that in the morning at about 5 O' clock when accused no.2 awoke because of the rain shower and to make safe Page 38 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined arrangement for the woods, he did not find Usha and daughter Amisha in the bed.
39. The complainant (PW2) - Motilal Gohil's deposition shows that he had four sons, Pravin, Mahendra, Kirit and Girish and two daughters namely Jyotsana and Ushaben.
39.1 PW2, the father on knowing about the suicide of daughter, had gone with the other family members to daughter in-law's place, where father met Ramanbhai, who told PW2 that Ushaben and Amisha were taken to hospital in a dead condition. 39.2 When PW2 asked his son-in-law - accused no.2 about how the incident occurred, accused no.2 replied that it was raining, so he woke to arrange for woods, he did not find Usha and Amisha in bed. They searched in the surrounding place, but did not find them.
39.3 PW2 was informed that, accused no.5 - Bhanuben, sister of the son-in-law, told accused no.2 that Page 39 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined the body of both were floating in the well. Son- in-law - accused no.2 told the complainant that Usha was pregnant and when he asked her to take pills for abortion, there was quarrel and therefore, she fell into the well.
40. The deposition of father of deceased, shows the immediate cause of suicide. This incident is related only with the son-in-law, husband of deceased.
41. Here the appellants as brother-in-law and both sisters-in-law as Diyar, Derani and Nanand are not related to the incident which connected suicide. The only connection of Nanand is that she had informed accused no.2 about Usha and Amisha's dead body in the well. Brother-in-law - Bharat - accused no.3, sister-in-law-accused no.6 and sister-in-law - Nanand - accused no.5 all the three along with deceased's father-in- law and deceased husband were convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetment to Page 40 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined suicide.
42. In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it has been held that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) 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 deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.
42.1 In the case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020) 15 SCC 359 After considering the provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, the Court held that conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on Page 41 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
42.2 In the case of Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244, it was held that there has to be an act of incitement on the part of the accused proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.
43. The facts of the case as got unfold during the trial by way of the complaint and deposition of complainant - father, the proximate cause as could be attributed was the talk between husband and wife in the close door of bed room. 43.1 The husband asked the wife to remove the foetus by consuming pills. It appears that the wife got hurt and taking along with her two and a half Page 42 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined year old daughter, ended her life by jumping in well.
44. In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (1) Crimes 347 (SC), the observations are made with regard to abetment of suicide. It has been held that in order to bring a case within purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in commission of said offence, person who is said to have abetted commission of suicide must have played active role by act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of suicide. It has been further observed that the act of abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved and established by prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. It is further observed that to satisfy requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that deceased was Page 43 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined left with no other option, except to commit suicide.
45. The evidence of PW2 father, would be required to be analyzed to examine the role and the conduct of the present appellants to consider whether there was any harassment or insulting behaviour proximate to the suicide incident to constitute abetment.
45.1 The marriage span as per father was six to seven years. Father said that initially, they stayed together nicely and after a year, the son-in- law-Govind - accused no.2 started harassing, by saying that she had brought less utensils and in that way would beat his daughter - Usha. His brother-in-law - Bharat - accused no.3 and sister-in-law - accused no.6 would also beat her. The father came to know because his daughter used to tell her.
Page 44 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined 45.2 This incident of beating deceased Usha for not bringing sufficient utensil is also related to son-in-law. There is a general statement of accused no.3 and accused no.6 beating Usha. 45.3 The most significant thing, which requires attention is that father came to know about this beating, as his daughter had informed her orally. There is no refers of having such knowledge by letters.
45.4 The evidence is of beatings after one year of marriage. Then the testimony suggest that one year prior to suicide, because of quarrel, they had brought Usha to their house.
45.5 What was the quarrel, the father is not giving detail or explaining it. Son-in-law said that he would not quarrel or beat, and saying so, son- in-law compromised and took back Ushaben. 45.6 So this incident prior, one year of suicide is also connecting son-in-law - deceased - accused Page 45 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined no.2.
45.7 The allegation is now only of the last one year prior to the commission of suicide. After settlement, the son-in-law took Ushaben back. At the time of death, the couple was having one five year old son and a two and half year old daughter (deceased).
45.8 PW2-father then stated that his daughter was commuting from Gunasvel to Dungri to attend the service at high school. The witness said he was keeping his daughter with him. The deposition says that thereafter, she was kept well for sometime and then there was quarrel and beatings and would say that she had brought less utensil and in dowry, they demanded money, and father- in-law and mother-in-law would say that she was not cooking well and would ask her to bring Rs 50,000/-. He had given Rs 25,000/-. He further deposed that Ushaben used to complain to him. There was quarreling, she was beaten and were Page 46 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined asking for money, because of this harassment and pills for abortion, Ushaben committed suicide, so he gave complaint Exh.24 at Valsad Police Station.
45.9 The allegation of last day incident was not against the present appellants accused nos.3, 5 and 6. The father has alleged of father-in-law and mother-in-law rebuking her for being not efficient in cooking.
45.10 Further allegation, which is specifically said is father-in-law and mother-in-law asked Ushaben to bring Rs.50,000/- and that the father PW2 gave Rs.25,000/-.
45.11 This evidence has been cross-examined and contradicted. In cross-examination, the witness was asked about last three lines in the complaint Exh.24 written in small handwriting, which he denied to have been written later on and that it does not bear his initial on it. The Page 47 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined three lines in the complaint Exh.24 is about the son-in-law asking Rs.50,000/- from him and that complainant had paid Rs.25,000/- and for the rest, he could not make arrangement. 45.12 So from Exh.24, it transpires that the son-in-
law had demanded Rs.50,000/- and father-in-law had paid Rs.25,000/- to the son-in-law. In face of this evidence at Exh.24, the testimony of both parents-in-law having demanded Rs.50,000/- becomes false.
45.13 Here too, accused nos.3, 5 and 6 are not involved in connection with the demand of money as dowry.
45.14 Except mother-in-law - accused no.4 - Naniben, all were acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC.
45.15 In the examination-in-chief, the father - PW2 had produced Exhs.25 to 31 stating it to be the letter written by her daughter during her Page 48 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined matrimonial life through cover and inland letter.
45.16 The learned Trial Court Judge has observed in the impugned judgment and order that the objection had been raised against reading the documents Exhs.25 5o 31 in evidence.
46. Learned advocate Mr. Shethna had contended that the letters as stated by the father were sent by cover and inland letter. The postal stamp and seal of the post department is not proved on it, nor such cover or inland letters are produced and further those being in the handwritings of Ushaben were not proved. Reliance was placed on the case of State of Maharashtra v. Hemant Kawadu Chauriwal & Ors., (2015) 17 SCC 598, wherein it has been observed in Paragraphs 9 and 12 as under:-
"9. The second issue which is of paramount consideration is the alleged letters written by the deceased to her father, which were Page 49 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined argued to be in her own handwriting. PW 3 himself deposed that he only produced a few letters which helped his case. Further, he himself testified that the letters were written by the deceased in her own handwriting as was known to him. The prosecution, however, had a duty to establish the veracity of such an important piece of evidence. The prosecution explained that it was unable to find the handwriting of the deceased by any other means. However, it is not explained as to what steps were taken to investigate the said evidence in the case. Another important fact which is on record is that while recording the dying declaration, the Naib Tahsildar deposed that the deceased was illiterate and the dying declaration was read over and explained to her. These two facts are self-contradictory and severely detrimental to the prosecution case which ought to have been explained by the prosecution.
12. In our opinion, the two pivotal evidence i.e. dying declaration and the alleged letters having not been proved, strikes at the very root of the prosecution case. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court rightly pointed out the lacunae in the shabby investigation of the case. Moreover, the prosecution failed to stand its ground and bring home its case."Page 50 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
47. The letters Exhs.25 to 31 produced by father PW2 were challenged in cross-examination. The documents were introduced in evidence by list Exh.11. The evidence of the father was that his daughter Ushaben during her marriage life used to write letters to him. She used to write letters in covers and by inland letters. These letters he had kept it safe. He had given the letters to the police after the complaint. Producing the documents in evidence, PW2 stated that the letters written were of perpetrating harassment and for demand of money. PW2 in the evidence in cross, stated that he studied in primary school. He is not fluent in reading, but can read arranging words. Witness was shown his complaint Exh.24. He stated that he cannot properly read the facts therein and he is not in a position to read, but denied that the last three lines of the complaint was added later on in small letters. He affirmed that his initials were not taken on those writings. Page 51 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
48. In the cross-examination, later on again, the witness PW2-father was asked to read complaint Exh.24. The Trial Court observed that the witness read the complaint, as would be read by any ordinary person.
49. Reading Exh.24, witness - PW2 stated that there is no fact of letters written by his daughter. The witness volunteered that he had informed the police. The letters, which he had produced, he said had come in post. Certain letters were post cards and certain in cover. Witness stated that he does not have the cover of the letters and does not remember whether inland letters had come and affirmed that the letters produced do not contain Postcard. 5-6 days after the complaint, he had produced the letters which were from the year 1991 to 1995. Witness stated that in the year 1991, there was settlement between husband and wife, and after settlement, his daughter had gone to the matrimonial house. Page 52 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
50. It appears that, the witness - PW2 had tried to project before the Court that he does not have fluency in reading words. However, that proved to be wrong during the trial.
51. The documents Exhs.25 to 31 are on full page printed lined paper. Witness admitted that there is no post card, inland letters, nor the postal cover of the letters.
52. The witness was crossed and questioned that the handwriting in the documents Exhs.25 to 31 were not of his daughter and were got up later on. PW2 also admitted that police had never asked for the natural handwritings of his daughter.
53. Exh.30 does not bear any date. It has been brought in the evidence, that the said letter suggests settlement brought by Shilpaben and Naginbhai between the husband and wife. After 4 to 5 months, Exh.30 was written by the daughter at village Dungri. Witness stated that his Page 53 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined daughter was serving at village Sabha and from there got her transferred to school at Dungri. PW2 does no know whether Shilaben and Naginbhai were serving at Dungri School.
54. The letter, Exh.30, if read in evidence, then the same is about settling dispute between husband and wife.
55. The witness - PW2 further was confronted with the contents of Exh.30, wherein there is a mention of three months pregnancy, which the witness said the foetus was of child Amisha, witness does not remember whether 4-5 months, his daughter had stayed at Kharel. He does not even remember the year. He has not verified personally of the fact noted in Exh.30.
56. In the cross-examination, the suggestion was that the letters produced were not written by daughter Ushaben and were all concocted. Page 54 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
57. Documents Exh.25 to 31 are with the dates corresponding as below.
Exhibit Dates
25 04.05.1991
26 11.05.1991
27 22.12.1991
28 01.12.1991
29 -
30 -
31 13.11.1993
While letters from defence side are dated as under:-
Exhibit Dates
42 11.07.1992
41 21.10.1992
40 24.08.1993
39 19.04.1993
38 16.12.1998
37 10.05.1995
36 02.05.1995
35 17.04.1994
34 23.03.1995
33 08.01.1994
32 30.03.2001
58. PW3 - Kiritkumar Motilal, Professor brother of the deceased Ushaben was asked in the examination-in-chief about the documents at Page 55 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Exh.25 to 31. He stated that those letters were in the handwriting of his sister - Ushaben. In the cross-examination, the brother stated that out of the total letters, he had read two of them after the incident and thereafter, improvising the same, he stated that he had seen the letters after the complaint was filed by his father and that too, on the next day i.e. 30th. He saw the original letters with his father. Those letters he had seen at Village Gunasvel at about 4-5 O'Clock in the afternoon. Those letters, which he had seen he stated, were inland letters. He does not know whether those letters have come through post.
59. It is strange and surprising to note that the letters at Exhs.25, 26, 27 and 30 were addressed to this witness - Kiritbhai too. Though these letters were addressed to him, at the relevant time, those letters were not read by him. He saw these letters only after the FIR given by his Page 56 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined father and that too, in the custody of the father.
60. The investigating officer - Kishorsinh Gagubha Vaghela examined as PW6 at Exh.53, in the cross- examination, was asked about the letters, who stated that the complainant has produced the xerox copy of the letters, but he had not drawn any Panchnama to receive the document. He had also not investigated whether those letters were received by post or otherwise and he had not inquired about the postal cover of the letters, which were stated to have been received through postal authority. He stated that the complainant had produced a copy of the inland letters. Exh.48 post card was not seized for the investigation and he further stated that the photo copies which were given by the complainant did not include Exh.48 dated 12.1.1995 and he does not know as to how Exh.48 had come into the police investigation papers. He further Page 57 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined clarified that except him, none had investigated the matter. He does not know how that letter had come in police paper and he cannot say whether that letter was placed in the papers.
61. The Police Inspector further stated that he had not made inquiry about the details in the letters and he further stated that when the xerox copies were produced, at that time, he had not seized the originals since the complainant was not ready to give him the original letters. He further stated that the complainant clarified that he was not having the original with him at that relevant time and that he would produce them in the Court.
62. The witness further affirmed, that he had not sent photo copies of the letters, which were produced, for any expert opinion, to know whether it were in the handwriting of the deceased.
Page 58 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
63. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is about the opinions of experts. Section refers to the evidentiary value of the expert evidence. When the Court has to form an opinion upon the identity of the handwriting, the opinions upon that point, of persons specially skilled in question as to identity of handwritings becomes the relevant fact. The Court can rely upon the expert opinion. In the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC 204, it has been observed as under:-
"The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court although, not an expert may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the expert's opinion..."
64. The plain meaning of Section 45 is that the Court in order to form an opinion as to the identity of handwriting can treat the opinion Page 59 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined upon that point of persons specially skilled in questions as to identity of handwriting as relevant facts. The opinion of such person called as experts are relevant facts and is admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 45 of the Act as relevant facts. No doubt the science with regard to identification and handwriting signature is not conclusive like that the science of identification of thumb impression, yet when due corroboration to the opinion of the handwriting expert, through ocular and circumstantial evidence is provided, then certainly such an opinion could be relied upon.
65. The investigating officer in the present matter has not cared to send the disputed writings for handwriting expert opinion. The investigating officer was asked to refer to the investigation papers and thereafter, he stated that he had not sent any sample or Muddamal for analysis to FSL. Page 60 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined There appears to be vital lapse on the part of the investigating officer.
66. The letters Exhs.25 to 31 become doubtful since the son - Kiritkumar had never read the letters at the relevant time though it was addressed to him along with his father. The letters were also addressed to Girish, another son of the complainant. Girish was not examined during the trial. Kirit, Girish and Usha are the children of the complainant with his wife - Laxmiben. The letters from Exhs.25 to 28 are of the year 1991, while there are no dates on Exhs.29 and 30 and suddenly, Exh.31 reflects date 13.11.1993, while contrary to that, the documents produced from Exhs.34 to 41 are postal letters, which are admitted by the complainant, which are of the years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. Two of the letters are even written after the death of Ushaben. Exhs.39 and 40 are dated 19.4.1993 and 24.8.1993, if perused, the complainant has Page 61 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined addressed the son-in-law as his dearest. In that circumstances, the document at Exh.31 even becomes more doubtful. In absence of observation of the learned Judge with regard to the admissibility without the assistance of the expert opinion, the documents Exhs.25 to 31 cannot be believed to have been proved.
67. In cross-examination, witness PW2 was asked whether he had withdrawn Rs.25,000/- from bank account to pay. He stated that the demand of Rs.50,000/- was made in 1993-94. That demand was for purchase of house. He had never given anything in dowry to Ushaben. He had given utensils and other things as per the custom of their community. The defence had tried to bring on record facts of a plot purchased in the name of son Kiritbhai for the amount of Rs.25,000/-, but the father denied and stated that the said plot was purchased by his daughter Ushaben in her own name. PW2 does not remember whether the Page 62 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined plot was purchased from her salary and does not remember whether the plot was purchased from Rs.25,000/- which he had given. A receipt 'Mark A' was shown to witness PW2, which he admitted was in the name of his son Kirit. He denied to give any clarification.
68. Kiritbhai was examined as PW3 who stated that his father's financial condition was general. Father's source of income was cobbling and three vighas land. His father is a cobbler at Gunasavel Village.
68.1 Kiritbhai deposed that after the incident, he came to know that his sister had spent money to purchase a plot in his name for Rs.25,000/-. He does not know that in the year 1990, his sister had taken postal insurance and he was made the nominee. So the fact of Rs.25,000/- gets clear by the documentary evidence. The money so used was to purchase plot in the name of PW3 - brother of Ushaben. Whether the money was of Page 63 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Ushaben or PW2 - father does not become clear. 68.2 Kiritbhai - PW3 also affirmed that his father -
PW2 had filed an application for maintenance against his son - Dr. Pravinbhai. 68.3 PW3 does remember when his sister had come earlier at parental home for eight months after marriage. He said that in the year 1994-95, she had stayed for 5-6 months.
68.4 The witness PW3 was asked the years of letter Exhs.25 to 31, which he said he does not know. He had read two letters out of them. Those letters he had seen next day of giving complaint.
69. Nothing had been proved that those letters Exhs.25 to 31 were given to the police. There is no evidence of Panchnama drawn by the police accepting the letters Exhs.25 to 31. Exhs.25 to 31 are on full scape papers. There is no postal stamp and seal. There are no cover or inland Page 64 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined letters. PW3 admitted that he had not stated before the police that before 3.1.1995 in the period of May 1994, her sister had come because of harassment at in-law's place. PW3 produced post card with signature and seal at Exh.48. It was written by Ushaben to PW3 - her brother. PW3 said that he was not knowing whether his sister along with her husband wanted to stay separately. Referring to Exh.48, PW3 was questioned that her sister had laid down a condition to stay away from other members of family in a separate apartment and thereafter, only on that condition, had returned back. To that, PW3 brother replied that there was harassment, so accused no.2 Govindbhai must have laid down the condition, that is what written in the letter.
70. Exh.48 is dated 12.1.1995. The date of suicide is 28.5.1995. It is a post card written by deceased Ushaben to PW3, addressed as Kiritkumar Page 65 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Motilal Gohil at Arts and Commerce College, Savli, District Vadodara, wherein Ushaben has stated of receiving money order from witness PW3 and her father giving her Rs.200/-. She has stated that on 3.1.1995, she had returned to Lilapore and that her husband henceforth would not beat or quarrel, and on the condition of staying in an apartment, accused no.2 had alone brought her back.
70.1 Ushaben has referred of seeing flats and the flat on first floor was of Rs.2,55,000/- and initially Rs.50,000/- was to be paid, and she has clarified that it has been decided to pay the money by getting money on land. Ushaben had asked for her brother's (PW3) opinion and had asked PW3 to write at school. Rest of the letter was about the well being of sister-in-law who was pregnant and Ushaben had invited sister-in- law (PW5) to visit her at Lilapore. Page 66 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
71. The witness - PW3 affirmed that the condition of staying separately from the joint family was accepted by accused no.2. He affirmed that since his sister had put a condition to stay separate, his brother-in-law - accused no.2 had selected an apartment worth Rs.2,55,000/-. PW3 affirmed through the letter Exh.48 that his sister had asked for his opinion. He had not replied the letter, nor had given his opinion.
72. Two aspects that get clarified; one, the deceased wanted to stay separately away from the joint family; another, the payment of Rs.25,000/- with receipt Mark 'A' in the name of brother PW3 and the admission of the brother that the plot was purchased in his name by the sister making a payment of Rs.25,000/- which he come to know after the incident.
72.1 So the allegation of demand of Rs.50,000/- as dowry and father making payment of Rs.25,000/- becomes doubtful. Exh.48 letter is coming from Page 67 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined the custody of PW3. The letter does not refer to any demand of money by accused no.2 or other members of the family.
72.2 The decision of buying an apartment was with the purchase money of Rs.2,55,000/-. The letter by sister to brother is asking for opinion but not of money. The complainant father PW2 denied to give any explanation for Mark 'A'. 72.3 PW2 - father was asked about certain letters written by him addressing Ushaben, grandson Mehulkumar and son-in-law Govindbhai - accused no.2.
72.4 Exh.32 is the letter informing the death of Pinkal, the daughter of his son Girish. The date of death was 29.3.2001, and the letter wrote of the after death rituals to be held. 72.5 Exh.34 is the post card dated 23.3.1995 written by PW2 in his own handwriting, informing his son-in-law accused no.2 about the case against Page 68 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined him and asking the son-in-law to support him in the Court.
73. Doctor son Pravin was practicing at Vasda, who was the son with witness first wife Gomti who was staying separate. The witness does not know whether his son Pravin died committing suicide. He attended the cremation procession. 73.1 As per the defense, PW2 father had filed maintenance case against Doctor son Pravin at Bardoli Court. Pravin's first wife - Gangaben filed case against Dr. Pravin and PW2 - father- in-law complaining about beatings. The second wife of Dr. Pravin - Dharnishtha PW4 at Exh.49 has turned hostile in the matter. 73.2 In the cross-examination, PW2 also admitted of his daughter's Jyotsnaben death who pre-deceased Ushaben, PW2 father stated that daughter Jyotsna died because of burns on account of bursting of primus stove and husband of Jyotsnaben was also Page 69 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined teacher. The suggestion was denied that Jyotsnaben too died committing suicide. There was a Criminal Case.
73.3 Exh.35 dated 17.4.1995 was the letter written by PW2 to accused no.2 and Ushaben at Lilapore. The letter was informing about Shrimant ceremony of Hashuben (PW5) wife of PW3-Kirit and other family members. On 10.5.1995, a Katha was arranged at PW2 house, so PW2 had invited son- in-law - accused no.2 to attend it that letter of invitation was produced at Exh.36. 73.4 Exh.38 is the letter by son of PW2, informing the death of Laxmiben wife of PW2. She died on 9.12.1998.
73.5 Exh.39 dated 19.4.1993 is the letter also written by PW2, about the construction of house and for arrangement of bride seeing. 73.6 PW2 identified Exh.40 in his handwriting referring to Mahendrabhai his son and brother- Page 70 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined in-law (Saala) Mohanbhai both staying at London. The witness also stated that the mental health of his son Mahendra was not good.
73.7 Letter dated 21.10.1992 was in PW2 handwriting produced at Exh.41 referring about the health of his sons, Kirit and Girish.
73.8 Letter dated 11.7.1992 Exh.42 is denied in the handwriting of PW2. It refers to Gangaben wife of Dr. Pravin serving mother-in-law. At that relevant time, wife of PW2 Laxmiben was admitted in hospital.
74. Advocate Mr. Shethna urged to consider the family history and medical condition to submit that the family was suffering from some genetic disorder. This aspect of suicide because of genetic disorder cannot be considered unless medically proved.
75. Kiritkumar brother PW3 appears to be near to Ushaben. The sister had also purchased a plot by Page 71 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined paying Rs.25,000/- in his name. As per PW3 deposition in the year 1995, he was serving as Professor at Savli at Arts and Commerce College. Ushaben was married to Govindbhai - accused no.2 in the year 1989. He said that sister Ushaben was a teacher at Dungri and accused no.2 was serving in G.V.D. High School. They had two children Mehul of five and a half year and Amisha two and a half in the year 1995. 75.1 Brother Kiritkumar deposed that the first year of marriage was good between Ushaben and accused no.2 and thereafter, quarrels started between both of them and because of quarrel, his sister had come to their house for about eight months and stayed there.
75.2 PW3 gave evidence that Ushaben had come for eight months to their house, she had informed that her husband was beating her and Nanand - accused no.5 weekly or fortnightly would come and quarrel with her and parents-in-law would Page 72 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined taunt her by saying that they would be doing the same as had happened to her sister and had asked her to go home and bring money from her father. At that time, there was settlement and then had sent Ushaben back to matrimonial house. PW3 further stated that for about one and a half year, they kept her nicely and again started quarrels and beatings and prior to 31.1.1995 in and about May, 1994, his sister had come back because of harassment in her matrimonial home. 75.3 The evidence of PW3 does not name appellants as Devar or Derani. The sister-in-law - accused no.5 is not specifically alleged with any instances, the only allegation is of her quarreling with deceased Ushaben. 75.4 The main date is 3.1.1995 which gets reflected in the letter by the deceased Exh.48, which is referred by PW3 brother. In the examination-in- chief, PW3 further states that thereafter, on 10.5.1995, his sister Ushaben and brother-in- Page 73 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined law-accused no.2 both had come for the Shrimant (baby shower) and had stayed on 14th and 15th. Accused no.5 Bharatbhai and accused no.1 father of accused no.2 took them back.
75.5 The witness affirmed in the cross-examination that since the relation between his sister and brother-in-law (accused no.2) was cordial, thus they had come and attended the Shrimant Ceremony at his home.
75.6 So on 3.1.1995, accused no.2 husband took back deceased Ushaben from the father's home with the understanding to buy a flat and stay separately. Exh.48 letter by deceased is addressed to PW3 brother on 12.1.1995 informing that they had seen one flat valued Rs.2,55,000/- Rs.50,000/- was to be paid as advance amount, but Exh.48 does make complaint of any demand by any of the accused for bringing Rs.50,000/- from father. The letter Exh.48 is rather asking brother's opinion.
Page 74 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined 75.7 PW3 states that since the relation of husband and wife were cordial, so they had visited their house for Shrimant on 14th and 15th. They had come on 10th May 1995.
76. So from 3.1.1995 till 15.5.1995, there was no dispute between husband and wife to the knowledge of PW3, brother and even PW2 father, who too had invited son-in-law for 'Katha' on 10.1.1995.
76.1 The letter Exh.34 dated 23.5.1995, Exh.35 of 17.4.1995, Exh.36 of 2.5.1995 by father-in-law addresses as his dearest son-in-law. The letters are of April and May. So in this period, there was no issue.
76.2 There is no reference of present three appellants of any harassment by them. 76.3 Prior to 3.1.1995, deceased had come back to her father's place since she wanted to stay separate Page 75 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined which is admitted by PW3. On assurance of staying separately, they had gone back. Ushaben was again carrying with the foetus of 8-10 weeks.
76.4 In the year 1993, Exh.39 and Exh.40 are two letters addressed on 19.4.1993 and 24.8.1993, which both addresses the son-in-law as the dearest. From Exh.39 letter, it appears that daughter Ushaben was at father's house and father-in-law was inviting the son-in-law and grand son Mehul as there was a occasion of bride seeing on 18.4.1993 and inviting to come at his place with Mehul also referring that the mother- in-law was remembering the son-in-law. 76.5 Exh.40 dated 24.8.1993 is referring to daughter and son-in-law about maternal uncle Manubhai and brother of Ushaben Mahendrabhai with the address at England asking them to write letter to brother at England.
Page 76 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined 76.6 In the year 1992, Exh.41 dated 21.10.1992 was addressed to daughter and son-in-law even asking son-in-law to take care of his health. Exh.42 dated 17.7.1992 addressed to son-in-law informing him of mother-in-law admitted in Surat hospital. So in 1992-93, there were no issues between the family.
76.7 In 1994-95, the daughter Ushaben appears to have come back at parental home as it has come on record that she wanted to stay separately. Even immediately from 3.1.1995 to 14.5.1995, there was no dispute, Ushaben committed suicide on 28.5.1995.
77. There is no allegation of any cruelty or harassment in the letters of the year 1992, 1993. No any case of dowry demand, or demand of money by the present appellants - accused no.3, 5 and 6, could be found from any of the letters of the year 1992-93, nor there are any allegations of any harassment by accused nos.3, Page 77 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined 5 and 6. The letters do not create a proximity of time from the date of commission of suicide. The contents of the letters since do not create proximity, cannot be used for establishing that present appellants perpetrated cruelty with the deceased which led to suicide.
78. The law as explained and propounded has now been settled. Necessary and relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are referred to understand the position of law.
79. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 5 SCC 371, it has been observed as under:-
"12... Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased "to go and die", that itself does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". The word "instigate"
denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge Page 78 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25-7- 1998 ensued by a quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27-7- 1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25-7- 1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide."
79.1 In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, it is observed that to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by 'goading' or 'urging forward'. The Court summed up the constituents of 'abetment' as under:-
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or Page 79 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above.
Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 79.2 In the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v.
State of Karnataka, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3541, this Court observed that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society. Commission of suicide largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict the accused for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
Page 80 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined 79.3 Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 1020 is a case, where Court after analysing various decisions on the point summed up the legal position in the following manner:
"14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide."
79.4 In the aforesaid judgment, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) and held that in a given case, even a time gap of 48 hours between using of abusive language by the accused and the commission of suicide would not amount to a Page 81 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined proximate act.
79.5 In the case of Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, [(2019) 17 SCC 301], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission Page 82 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on Page 83 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide..."
79.6 In the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal, [(1994) 1 SCC 73], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned in Para-17 as under:
"17. ... The Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty...."Page 84 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined 79.7 In the case of M. Mohan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, [AIR 2011 SC 1238 : (2011) 3 SCC 626], the Hon'ble Apex Court has made the following observations regarding the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, referring to the word 'suicide', which reads thus:
"If the provisions for the offence under Section 306 are considered, it is evident that the basic ingredient regarding the intentional instigation are required to be proved or established. The word 'suicide' has not been defined. The word 'suicide' would mean the intentional killing of oneself. As per Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Edition, p.686, "A finding of suicide must be on evidence of intention. Every act of self destruction is, in common language described by the word 'suicide' provided it is an intentional act of a party knowing the probable consequence of what he is about. Suicide is never to be presumed. Intention is the essential legal ingredient."
79.8 In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it Page 85 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. 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. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
79.9 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, [2010 (12) SCC 190] in regard to the abetment has held as under:
Page 86 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined "25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
80. Exh.48 is a letter, which has been produced through PW3 - Kiritkumar. As referred hereinbefore, the letter refers to the decision to purchase a flat at Rs.2,55,000/-, the deceased Ushaben had written Exh.48 to PW3 - Kiritkumar for his opinion. There is no mention of any demand of money in the said document at Exh.48.
Page 87 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
81. PW3 in the cross-examination has affirmed that he has not stated in his police statement that her father-in-law and mother-in-law had rebuked her by saying that they would do the similar as had happened to her sister. He also clarified that on 10.5.1995, since the relation between his sister and brother-in-law were harmonious, therefore, they had come to his house for the Shrimant ceremony.
82. In the evidence of PW3, nothing specifically comes out against the present appellant of any harassment or cruelty by the present appellants to the deceased. Whatever dispute which could be found were between the husband and wife. Even the allegation against the parents-in-law could not be proved on record. It is surprising that the learned Trial Court Judge had convicted the mother-in-law under Section 304B IPC. If the case of dowry demand was not believed against rest of the accused, then, there would not be Page 88 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined any case to believe that the alleged harassment under Section 306 IPC were in connection with any demand for dowry. The evidence of the father as well as brother - Kishor makes no reference of any act or incident qua the appellants to have committed any willful act or omission or intentional aid or instigation to the deceased to commit suicide, this Court thus is not persuaded to invoke the presumption under Section 113A to find the appellant guilty under Section 306 IPC.
83. The father in the cross-examination has stated that in the year 1991, there was settlement between the husband and wife. Apart from examining brother - Kishorbhai, the prosecution has also examined Dharmishthaben Pravinbhai. She is the second wife of Dr. Pravin who had committed suicide. Dharmishthaben has been declared hostile. However, in the cross- examination, she has admitted that Pravinbhai Page 89 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined had committed suicide and that fact was known to her father-in-law. She also stated that there were often letters from father-in-law asking for money and that her husband would give reasonable amount by way of money order or cash. It has come on record that the complainant father had filed a case against Dr. Pravin asking for maintenance.
84. PW5 is Hansaben, wife of Kiritbhai. In the year 1995, she was residing at Savli. Her husband is a Professor. She came to know about the incident, of Ushaben committing suicide by jumping in the well. She does not know when the marriage had taken place between Ushaben and accused - Govind, but she stated that it was eight years prior to her death. She has stated of matrimonial dispute in Ushaben's house stating that she used to inform her that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law - Diyar, sister-in-law - Derani, sister-in-law - Page 90 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Nanand, would every week harass her by rebuking her. Witness stated that Ushaben informed her that she had sold away the plot and had given money, and the rest she has left it to her fate. She stated that she does not know the reason of committing suicide by jumping into well. She also clarified that she could not know from Ushaben as to why they were harassing her. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that she has no occasion to visit the matrimonial house of Ushaben. The witness evidence would not clarify about any specification or instances of harassment. She affirmed that in the police statement, she has not stated that Ushaben had informed her when she had come to her parental house that after Diwali, they were going to stay in the apartment and that they have purchased a house. That she has not stated before the police of any matrimonial discord and the fact that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Diyar) and Nanand rebuking her every week and Page 91 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined perpetrating harassment and has also not stated before the police that she has sold away the flat and had given the money and for the rest, she has left it to her fate. The evidence as noted of this witness was first time stated in the Court which bears no evidentiary value.
85. The evidence of this witness therefore, does not become reliable as whatever she has stated in the examination-in-chief has come for the very first time since she had not given such a statement to the police. The evidence appears to have been added to bring the connection of the present appellants to the harassment alleged. Thus, by the evidence of this witness to, nothing gets proved against the present appellants.
86. The investigating officer - PW6 - Kishorsinh Gagubha Vaghela who was serving as Police Sub- Inspector on 28.5.1995 at Valsad Rural Police Station, he had recorded Exh.24 the complaint Page 92 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined and on the basis of the complaint, he had recorded the Accidental Death Entry no.13 of 1995, and Executive Magistrate had drawn the inquest Panchnama of the deceased Ushaben at Exh.21 and minor Amisha at Exh.22 in presence of the Panchas. Exh.20 is the Panchnama of the place of offence. He submitted that on the basis of the statement, he found it as a visitation offence and therefore, the Deputy Superintendent of Police had come for examination and on that basis, the complaint Exh.24 for the offence was registered and he started the investigation. The witness stated that the papers which were there in the preliminary inquiry in connection with the accidental death were taken along and the statements of the concerned witnesses were recorded. He stated that during the course of investigation, the complainant had produced photo copies of the letters. The accused nos.1, 2 and 3 were arrested on 28.5.1995. Accused nos.4 and 5 were arrested on 29.5.1995 while Page 93 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined accused no.6 was on anticipatory bail. thus, her arrest was made on 13.7.1995. He had produced the charge-sheet in the Court. In the cross- examination, the investigating officer was asked to refer the Accidental Death Entry no.13 of 1995 at Exh.54 who affirmed that in the Police Station diary, the cause of death is that she was fed up of her illness and therefore, along with her daughter, she had jumped into the well. He also affirmed that in Accidental Death Entry no.13 of 1995, Section 302 IPC was invoked.
87. The investigating officer had stated that nothing had come on record, nor had been disclosed during the investigation of any person present near the deceased at the time when she jumped into the well. When he was entrusted the investigation, he was given the complaint which was before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In Exh.24, the handwriting as a writer belongs to him.
Page 94 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
88. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that he had not inquired about the register of marriage of Ushaben. He denied that he has not recorded the statement of the neighbours of the accused. He further stated that the statement of Maganbhai Babubhai and other neighbours have not been made a part of the charge-sheet nor they are made the witness. He affirmed that they were not made the witness to the charge-sheet since they were not supporting the complainant's case. The investigating officer stated that in the complaint Exh.24, the complainant has not stated that he was having the custody of the letters written by deceased Ushaben and has affirmed that he has not received the photo copy of the letters. He stated that the accused Govindbhai, Bharatbhai, Bhanuben and Maltiben are all serving. Maltiben was a teacher at Bilimora, while Bhanuben was serving as a teacher at Surat. The investigating officer clarified that Page 95 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined from the statement of the witnesses, the date, month and details of harassment are not getting clear, and further stated that there has been no complaint against the accused at the Police Station regarding any harassment or quarrel and that it was the very first complaint.
89. Learned advocate Mr. Shethna has referred to the decision in the case of Nareshkumar v. State of Haryana, (2024) 3 SCC 573, wherein it was held that the basic ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Thus, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Thus, in order to convict a person under Section 306, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence and mere harassment, held, cannot be Page 96 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined sufficient to hold an accused guilty of commission of suicide. Further, it was held that the prosecution has to prove an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. It was held that ingredients of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present, but has to be visible and conspicuous.
90. Further it was held that the offending action on the part of the accused ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. The word "instigation" means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. Therefore, if the person who committed a suicide was hyper sensitive and the action of the accused otherwise is not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstance person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
91. In the said judgment of Nareshkumar (supra), it was also noticed that mere demand of money from Page 97 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined the wife or her parents for running a business without anything more would not constitute cruelty or harassment.
92. In Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, 2025 (2) Crimes 213 SC, it has been held that abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive proximate act on part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence. The act attributed should not only be proximate to time of suicide, but should also be of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative, but to take drastic step of committing suicide. Until and unless, some guilty intention on part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not Page 98 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined possible to convict accused for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
93. In the case of Shenbagavalli & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 987 rendered in Criminal Appeal no.4268 and 4269 of 2024 dated 30.4.2025, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering Section 306 IPC that the abetment of suicide requires proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Mere harassment or insulting behaviour that is not proximate to the suicide incident does not constitute abetment. It has been further observed that mere allegations of harassment and insulting behaviour made a month prior to the suicide without proximate or continuous acts do not constitute abetment of suicide.
94. Here in the present case, the cause of suicide is the conversation between the husband and wife, which had taken place on the night Page 99 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined previous to the day of suicide. The complainant in his own complaint as well as deposition had stated that the son-in-law i.e. deceased (A2) and deceased daughter Ushaben had a quarrel regarding the foetus, which she was carrying. A2 had instructed her to get it removed. The immediate cause for suicide is the quarrel with the husband. The postmortem report clarifies the foetus of 8-10 weeks.
95. Prior to this incident, with the document at Exh.48 with the deposition of the brother - Kiritbhai Motilal - PW3 coupled with the deposition of the father, it can be concluded that the deceased and her husband A2 had decided to stay separately in an apartment, Exh.48 further clarifies that the deceased had returned back to Lilapore on 3.1.1995. The assurance was given by the husband that he would not beat or quarrel with her and the assurance was also given by the husband that they would stay Page 100 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined separately in an apartment and had already selected a flat of Rs.2,55,000/-. The said letter Exh.48 has come from the custody of Kiritkumar Motilal Gohil - PW3, it does not transpire from Exh. 48 of any demand of money or the specific demand of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant father. The allegation of dowry demand has been proved false by the documentary evidence, where the accused could prove by document Mark 'A' that the amount of Rs.25,000/- as stated to have been given by the father was probably used for purchase of plot in the name of PW3 - Kiritkumar, which the witness Kiritkumar came to know only after the incident of suicide. So the case of any demand of money from the husband or from any other members of the family has not been proved.
96. Since 3.1.1995, it has been proved on record that the relation between the husband and wife were cordial. They had also visited the house of Page 101 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined PW3 for Shrimant ceremony of PW5. Both the husband and wife together had stayed for about 4-5 days at the parental house. There is no allegation against the present appellants as brother-in-law (Diyar), sister-in-law (Devrani) and sister-in-law (Nanand) of any harassment in the immediate past of suicide. No allegation is made of any proximate act of cruelty of any of the three appellants to be considered as instigation or aid in committing suicide. The letters which had been produced by the father at Exhs.25 to 31 are actually not proved. Those letters almost are of the year 1991, while the letters from Exhs.32 to 42 shows about the cordial relation between the father-in-law and the son-in-law as well as with the other family members. The letters Exhs.25 to 31 had not proved to be in the handwriting of the deceased Ushaben. No expert opinion was sought, though the documents were challenged in the cross- examination. Even if the letters are read in Page 102 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined evidence, those letters do not prove the close proximity to the date of suicide.
97. It is well established principle, while interpreting Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, that it becomes important to establish by proof of direct or indirect act of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which may be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and that the victim was put in such a position that she had no other option, but to commit suicide. Here in the present case, the deceased was a teacher with two children. She had the duty to think of the future of both the children. They were in a process of purchasing a new flat. The husband was also an earning member, If at all, she had the grudge against the husband, she had the option to again return back to her parental Page 103 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined house.
98. There is no direct action in the form of cruelty or harassment of the present appellant - accused nos.3, 5, 4 and 6, to have any proximity to the time of suicide. There is no allegation of accused conduct, which provoked urging or tarnishing the victim's self-esteem creating an unbearable situation by any of the present appellants to consider the case under Section 306 IPC. The ingredients of the offence are not made out against the present appellants. On assessment and evaluation of the facts and evidence on record, this Court is of an opinion that the learned Trial Court Judge has erred in evaluating the evidence in accordance to the principles of law. To satisfy the requirement of instigation, accused by act or omission or by a continued course of conduct, should have created such circumstances that deceased was left with no other option, except to commit suicide. No Page 104 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1131/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined such case was proved against the present appellants no.3, 5 and 6.
99. Thus, to the reasons given hereinabove and in light of the observations made, the appeal is required to be allowed.
100. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad in Sessions Case no.59 of 2002 (Old Sessions Case no.119 of 1995) is hereby set aside. Bail bond discharged. The appellants no.3, 5 and 6 are acquitted of all the charges. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) Maulik/Pankaj Page 105 of 105 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:30:18 IST 2025