Gujarat High Court
Shardaben,Daughter Of Ishwarlal ... vs State Of Gujarat on 15 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2608 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
SHARDABEN,DAUGHTER OF ISHWARLAL BHOGILAL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By the judgment dated 26.12.2005, the Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa in Sessions Case Nos.30 of 2004 and 69 of 2004, convicted the present three appellants under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced them for one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A and a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine further one month simple imprisonment, and for the offence Page 1 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined under Section 306 of IPC, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo a further simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The trial under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 114 of IPC was against five accused. Godavariben (A3) - the mother/ mother-in-law and Kailashben (A4) - sister/sister-in-law were acquitted, while Shardaben (A1), Jasiben (A2) and Kokilaben (A5), present appellants as sisters and sisters-in-law were convicted.
2.1 The complainant - Hiralal Naranlal Thakkar, resident of village Shihori filed FIR before Deodar Police Station on 06.11.2003 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under section 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of IPC. 2.1.1 Common charge, for the Sessions Case No.30 of 2004 and on supplementary charge sheet being filed, for Sessions Case No.69 of 2004, was framed on 09.09.2004 by Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa.
2.1.2 The charge levelled against them were with the fact that deceased Prafulkumar and deceased Meenaben had married two Page 2 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined years ago and from the beginning of the marriage all the accused started mentally and physically harassing deceased Meenaben @ Tinaben and therefore, both the deceased started residing in the rented house of the ownership of Thakkarbhai Kanubhai at Deodar and there too, by visiting the house, all the accused had mentally harassed both the deceased and had slapped Prafulkumar on the road. All the accused had often mentally and physically harassed both the deceased and therefore, had committed the offence under section 498A read with section 114 of the IPC.
2.1.3 Further, at the referred place and time, because of the constant physical and mental cruelty of the accused both the deceased finding no other alternative committed suicide, on 05.10.2003 at about 11.00 hours by pouring kerosene on their body, ablazed themselves thus, the accused were charged for abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with section 114 of the IPC.
2.2 The complainant is the father of deceased Tinaben @ Meenaben, who married deceased Prafulkumar Ishwarbhai Thakkar on 09.12.2001, who was the only brother of the present appellants. It is stated that Tinaben and her husband Page 3 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Prafulkumar both committed suicide on 05.10.2003 in the rented house at 11.00 p.m., and the incident was informed to the Deodar Police Station on 06.10.2003 at about 1.30 a.m. by their relative Kishorebhai Thakkar, thereafter Accidental Death Report No.8/2003 was given under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). The complainant and the witnesses were present at the hospital, and though the Investigating Officer had tried to get the statement recorded, none got their statement recorded nor registered the FIR. Thereafter the FIR was registered by the complainant after a delay of 31 days of alleged incident.
2.3 After completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed and thereafter a supplementary charge sheet was also filed and therefore, two Sessions Case Nos.30 of 2004 and 69 of 2004 were registered. After framing of charge below Exh.7 the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and the defense had also examined 5 witnesses.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah has submitted that that the entire case of prosecution is based on the testimonies of partisan witnesses i.e. father, mother, brother, sister-in-law and sister of deceased Tinaben, they had no Page 4 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined personal knowledge regarding the marriage life of the deceased Prafulkumar and Tinaben and only on assumption and presumption vague and general allegations were made. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that on being informed, a 'Janvajog' entry was made by the police and when police visited the hospital on the same day, the complainant and all the witnesses though were present in the hospital, but raised no grievance against any of the accused. Mr. Shah stated that thereafter, again on 31.10.2003 the police tried to record the statement of the complainant, but was in vain, as ground of mental disturbance on account of incident was put forward and thereafter FIR was filed after a period of 31 days of the incident. Advocate Mr. Shah stated that the Investigating Officer Balubhai Jethabhai (PW5) deposed at Exh.83 that during the course of investigation, he tried to record statement of the complainant after recording the Janva Jog entry, but no one had given any adverse statement against the accused.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that looking to the entire prosecution evidence, it has come on record that Prafulkumar had committed suicide on the ground that one of his sisters had slapped him and as per the prosecution, Page 5 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined deceased Tinaben had committed suicide since she and Prafulkumar had to stay separately from the matrimonial house. 3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Shah stated that prima facie, offence under section 498A is not made out, so far as the commission of suicide by Prafulkumar is concerned. Mr. Shah stated that Prafulkumar was the younger brother of the appellants and therefore only because one of his sisters had slapped the brother, is not sufficient to attract section 306 of IPC. Mr. Shah stated that to attract offence under section 498A of IPC, the ingredients are (i) the woman must be married, (ii) she must be subjected to cruelty or harassment, (iii) such cruelty and harassment must have been done either by husband of the woman or by the relatives of husband, therefore stated that, prima facie no offence under section 498A of IPC is made out against the appellants, so far as it is the commission of suicide by their brother Prafulkumar.
3.4 Learned advocate Mr. Shah stated that prima facie no offence under section 498A is satisfied for the suicide by Tinaben, as the prosecution has not proved any cruelty or harassment having been metted out to her by the appellants. Mr. Shah submitted that it is an admitted fact and even it is the case Page 6 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined of the prosecution that all the appellants were living separately from both the deceased. Mr. Shah stated that from the evidence of witnesses, it is crystal clear that Tinaben had committed suicide, as she wanted to stay separately, and there is no allegation of demand of any dowry nor there is any specific allegation of harassment or cruelty and therefore in absence of such evidence, offence under section 498A is not made out. 3.5 Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that prima facie offence under section 306 of IPC is also not made out against the appellants for commission of suicide by both the deceased. Mr. Shah stated that as per the prosecution case, no specific instance, much less, proximate instance is alleged by which it can be said that there was no other option for Prafulkumar and Tinaben but to commit suicide and the allegation made by the prosecution in the entire evidence is to the effect that one of his sisters had slapped Prafulkumar, but there is no specific date, time or reason for giving such slap proved by the prosecution. 3.6 Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that section 306 of IPC penalizes those, who abet the act of suicide and to charge any person under section section 306 of IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the Page 7 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined act of suicide by the deceased, and this involvement must satisfy the pre-condition outlined in section 107 of IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspiring with other to ensure that the act was carried out, or engages in conduct that directly led to the person taking his/her life.
3.7 Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that to attract section 306 IPC, it is well established principle that the presence of clear mens rea is essential. He submits that merely harassment by itself is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. Advocate Mr. Shah stated that the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Though, it is the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law, it is not satisfied in the matter. To attract the provisions of section 306 of IPC, it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide, which requires certain such acts, omissions, creation of circumstances or words, which would incite or provoke another person to commit suicide and Page 8 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined therefore, looking to the evidence of the prosecution, no such basic ingredients to attract offence under section 306 of IPC is made out. Thus, Mr. Shah urged that it is a fit case to acquit the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.
3.8 Relying on the judgment of Geo Varghese vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr., [2021] 10 S.C.R. 393, learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the said judgment that there must be allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment to the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide.
3.9 Learned advocate Mr. Shah further relied on the judgment of Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat , [2024 INSC 960], to submit that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. Mr. Shah submitted that the cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human behaviour and reactions, requiring Page 9 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined the Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused's role in instigating the act and mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Mr. Shah stated that such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide, whether the accused's conduct, including provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim's self-esteem, created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation and each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused's intent and its impact on the victim.
4. Per Contra Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt appearing for the State submitted that the judgment and order of the Trial Court convicting the present accused is just and proper and does not require any interference, as same is appropriately passed. Ms. Bhatt referring to the evidence of the witnesses submitted that the conviction of three sisters-in-law is consistent with the evidence on record. The suicidal death of husband and wife leaving back an one year child itself would draw the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, that a Page 10 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined married woman was subjected to cruelty, which led her to commit suicide and abbetors of suicide were the sisters-in-law and mother-in-law.
4.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that here the husband is putting suicide note to explain the cause of death. The suicide note has been proved by the panchas, which had been recovered by Dy.S.P. Ms. Bhatt, also submitted that the complainant and the family members were in shock because of death of son-in- law and daughter and the said fact explains the delay in filing the FIR. Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that the suicide note had been proved by the complainant father as well as brother of deceased Tina as well as the Manager. The cause of suicide had been proved by the witnesses, which shows continuous harassment from the accused and they were ultimately staying separately, there too, they were harassed. 4.2 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt further stated that the witnesses have given evidence of sisters slapping Prafulkumar on the road, which had led to the cause for suicide, which is an immediate act and thus, supporting the judgment submitted that the case has been proved by the witnesses as per the charge framed and thus, stated that the appeal is required to be dismissed and the Page 11 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined conviction may be confirmed.
5. Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC are reproduced herein below for ready reference to appreciate and analyse the facts and evidences on record:
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
306. Abetment of suicide.-- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
5.1 Section 498A had been incorporated under Chapter XX(A) of the IPC with effect from 25.12.1983. The provision was made to give recourse to the women, who were subjected to cruelty by husband or by relative of the husband of the woman. Thus, in view of the provisions so enacted the ingredients of section 498A Page 12 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined would not be applicable in the present case against the son. The explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of cruelty to bring the case under Section 498A, the woman must be married, she must be subjected to cruelty or harassment and such cruelty or harassment must have been either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband. Here, in the present case, both the husband and wife have committed suicide together on the very same day.
6. Section 498A explains the cruelty, which has been suffered by the married woman. While, those considerations for the definition of cruelty cannot be extended to consider the cause of the death of son. Section 498A refers to wilful conduct of the husband or the relatives of the husband of such a nature, which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. While sub-clause
(b) under the explanation is about the harassment to the woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her, to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, or such harassment would be on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. In view of the explanation, sub-clause (b) relates to dowry demand. In the present case, the charge does not state Page 13 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined of any dowry demand.
6.1 The Trial Court judge had framed the charge under Section 498A read with Section 114 of IPC, alleging cruelty by the accused, connecting both the husband and wife i.e. the son and daughter-in-law. Section 498A would not be attracted for the son, as the provision is only made for the married woman, who would be described as daughter-in-law under Section 498A. The charge, thus, under section 498A read with Section 114 of IPC, was required to be proved only in connection with the daughter- in-law.
6.2 Under Section 306 of IPC, the allegation, which requires to be proved by the prosecution is abetment of suicide. The accused are to be charged for instigation or abetment for committing suicide. direct involvement of the accused in such abetment or instigation is necessary, in case, where deceased committed suicide.
7. Section 107 IPC defines abetment. In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., [2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (1)], the concept of abetment has been made clear with reference to Section 107 of IPC in relation to Section 306 of IPC. It is Page 14 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined observed that the act of abetment was 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, it cannot be considered that the accused had goaded or urged forward to provoke, incite or encourage the act of commission of suicide. 7.1 In the case of Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., [1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 731], the allegation levelled were as as under:
"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in- law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."
7.2 The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a conclusions that the ingredients of abetment are not attracted to the facts of the case. Conviction under section 306 of IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment to the deceased is unsustainable in law, and that dying declaration of the deceased wife alone not sufficient to bring the acts of the appellants, husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased within section 306 IPC.
8. In the present case, both the husband and wife committed Page 15 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined suicide on 05.10.2003 by pouring kerosene and ablazing themselves. The cause of death of Prafulkumar Ishwarlal Thakkar and Tinaben wife of Prafulkumar notes extensive burns, but the exact cause of death was to be known after FSL report by viscera analysis of FSL Ahmedabad.
8.1 PW1 - Doctor Navinchandra Joytaram Parekh after referring to the FSL report, stated that there was no consumption of poison and the death was because of burning. The external injury of Prafulkumar was 80% to 90% and of Tinaben 70% to 80% and both dead bodies had first degree burns.
9. The panchnama of place of incident (Exh.77), where both committed suicide, was drawn on 06.10.2008 between 9.30 to 11.00 during morning hours. The place was shown by Thakkar Kishorekumar Chhaganlal in connection with Accidental Death Report No.8/2003 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Exh.77 notes that both the deceased were staying at the rented house of the ownership of Thakkar Kanubhai Manilal. By opening the grill as well as the door and on entering the first room, they found one bed in a half burnt condition, which was a wooden 'setty', and beside that on the floor, there was half burnt quilt and over it Page 16 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined were two pillows in a burnt condition. In the room they found water and sand, which appears to have been used for extinguishing the fire. The quilt and pillows were wet. Beside the bed, there were burnt cloths and burnt wooden pieces. There was excessive stench of kerosene. Beside the bed, there was a wooden cupboard in the southern wall. The doors of the cupboard were burnt and it was noted that all the cloths were also found burnt.
9.1 Beside the cupboard on the same wall, they found iron grilled window with three doors. The glass of the window was broken, while the woods were partly burnt. On the eastern side, they found cupboard for storage, the doors of the same were also burnt, wherein they found bags and such other articles, which were found black because of the fire and just beside that, on the wall, they found a wooden cover containing mattress. The door also got burnt and the things inside the cupboard, which were chairs and mattress, were burnt. Near the cupboard, one wooden cradle (baby cot) was also found burnt. There was a showcase beside the window with the broken glass, the plywood was also found burnt and from the drawer of the showcase, they found one lined note book with the photo of Lord Krishna and Page 17 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 'Gao Mata' on the hardboard, which had writing ''Fulo Jaisi Khusboo Char Vuja Sao Behatrin Char Khusbo Sao' in Hindi and on the first page of the note book with the light blue colour, in the first line, it was noted in Gujarati 'Ghar Na Trass Thi Jao Chhu' (Going because of the harassment at house), and in the last line 'Boleli' (spoken) word was written, and in between, the cause for death has been written. While rest of the pages were found blank. It was noted that the first page of the writing and the hardboard was found dusted with black soot of fire flame. After that writing, the lower part of the four lines were found blank. The said book was seized.
9.2 Beside the book from the showcase, they found one big key of the Bank 'Tijori' in a chain cover, which Kishorebhai informed that it was the key of treasury of Nagrik Bank. Beside the key, they found 10 currency note of Rs.100/- denomination, which were in total Rs.1000/- and there was a red colour Ladies Purse in the next drawer, wherein there was one note of Rs.50 denomination, one note of Rs.20 and one note of Rs.10, while there were coins, with the total of Rs.86, and besides that there was artificial 'Mangalsutra'. Those things were handed over to Thakkar Kishorebhai.
Page 18 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 9.3 The panchnama shows that almost everything was burnt. In the first room cable as well as T.V. and one C.D. was found burnt. The ceiling as well as walls were black. The wings of the fan on the ceiling were burnt, light fittings were also found burnt. While in the Kitchen, they found one wick stove, in which very little kerosene was found.
9.4 Evidence of (PW9) Sharmishtaben @ Lalitaben Dineshkumar Thakkar, sister of deceased Tinaben was recorded at Exh.70. The reference of this witness would be relevant, to note the conduct of both the deceased prior to their death. As per Sharmishtaben, both the deceased had come at her house at Thera from Deodar. The evidence is on record that both the deceased husband and wife were staying in a rented house at Deodar. As per Sharmishtaben, both the deceased had brought their son 'Janak' aged about one year at their house and had asked to keep their child with her till the time they returned back visiting dispensary. Since both of them did not return till late, therefore, she phoned her husband at Sihori to enquire about them. Thereafter, at about 10.33 to 11.00 hours, she came to know from her father that Prafulkumar and Tina both died by burning themselves. According to the witness, her sister Tinaben Page 19 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined was harassed by the sisters-in-law and mother-in-law and Prafulkumar too was harassed by his family members. 9.5 In the examination-in-chief she deposed that Tinaben was staying with father-in-law, mother-in-law and four sisters-in-law along with her husband. She had no elder brother-in-law or younger brother-in-law. She also referred about the marriage of sisters-in-law and had stated that Jassiben was staying along with her parents. According to her, she has no knowledge at which village sister-in-law Shardaben (A1) was married. While, Taraben was married at Palanpur, Kailashben (A4) at Thera village, Kokilaben (A5) was staying at Deodar separately besides the house of deceased Tinaben. Jassiben (A2) was staying along with the parents . It appears that Taraben of Palanpur has not been arraigned as an accused. PW9 further stated that though Kailashben was from Thara, she would often reside at her parents place at Deodar. Shardaben was residing with her parents. She deposed that all the four sisters and mother-in-law used to harass and beat deceased Tinaben for minor reasons. She further stated that Tinaben and her husband used to come to her house and talk about the cruelty. Witness husband had gone to Deodar to rebuke them and had told them that, if they Page 20 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined do not find conducive, both should be made to stay separate. She further stated that her father also had reprimanded the mother-in-law and the sisters-in-law and she further stated that Shardaben told her that she is the Sarpanch of the village and she would not allow them to stay.
9.6 The witness further stated that when her father had gone to reprimand them, at that time, Godavariben (A3) stated that she needs her daughter and not the son and she would not mind if the other son would go, since already one has gone. 9.7 PW9-Shardaben thus, in her evidence states that the deceased was beaten and harassed for minor reasons, her husband as well as her father had gone to the house to rebuke the sisters-in-law and the mother. Her husband had asked them to keep them separate and according to the witness Shardaben being the Sarpanch of the village had stated that she would not allow them to stay.
9.8 PW9 - Shardaben has further stated in the deposition that when Prafulkumar was going to his office, he was slapped in the Bazar and stated that Prafulkumar was helpless. Deceased Tinaben had informed her. She stated that after the incident of Page 21 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined slapping, Prafulkumar and Tina had come along with their son. 9.9 So in view of the deposition, on the same day prior to committing suicide, deceased had left their one year old son Janak at the house of this witness, who is sister of deceased Tinaben. Two facts, which have come in her evidence, would require a reference for analysis of the evidence of other witnesses, are the allegations that sisters-in-law and mother-in- law were harassing Tinaben and that Prafulkumar was given a slap in the market, while he was going towards his office. Deceased Prafulkumar was serving in Babar Nagrik Sahakhari Bank at Deodar as Cashier. In the cross-examination, when the witness was asked about the visit of both the deceased at her house, she stated that on the last day they had come to her house at about 8 O' clock night. She had not enquired from them as to why they had come from Deodar at that time. She had not offered tea or water nor they had informed about dinner. She had not enquired from them as to why they had not gone to Deodar and had come to Thera. The witness stated that deceased Prafulkumar had told her that the witness sister i.e. Tinaben was not well and therefore, they would have to go to a hospital. He had informed that deceased Tina was having pain in Page 22 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined her chest and had told her that they would be going to Patel's dispensary. As they had not returned so she had asked her husband to enquire at Patel dispensary; her husband informed that dispensary was closed. The husband of PW9 - Dineshkumar Thakkar or Doctor or any responsible person of Patel dispensary have not been examined to fortify the fact of deceased actually visiting the dispensary.
9.10 In the cross-examination PW9 stated that they had not enquired whether accused were harassing Prafulkumar prior to the marriage. She does not have information about the time or specific date of harassment by the accused to Prafulkumar. She had not known of any reason of harassment to Prafulkuimar. She stated that four months prior to the incident both Tinaben and Prafulkumar had started residing separately from the family. 9.11 The witness stated that after their staying separate, she and her husband visited Tina's house. She deposed that none of the accused had said anything about her visiting there. But then further clarified that since she was visiting Tina, Kokilaben (A5) had gone to her father to threaten him and at that time, her brother Ashok was also present there. The further evidence shows that Kokilaben (A5) had gone to the shop of Ashok at Page 23 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Deodar village and there too, had threatened Ashok. She clarifies that the day on which they had left the house of Tinaben after visiting her, immediately, on that day, Kokilaben (A5) had given threat, which was to her father. She does not remember as to what specifically was said in the threat. She further states that it was told to them that they should not visit the house of Tina, otherwise they would have to face the consequences. Further stated that accused were not liking her visiting Tinaben's house. 9.12 In the cross-examination she denied the suggestion, which was put, that the accused had suspicion that they had made Prafulkumar and Tinaben to stay separate and for that reason the accused were asking them not to visit Tinaben's house. She further stated that the incident of slapping had occurred two to four days prior to suicide. After such incidence of slapping, she had never phoned her brother-in-law (deceased). She had received phone call of Tinaben, who stated that the slap was given on the road. The witness does not know about the talk between brother and sister nor the reason to give the slap. She had denied the suggestion that from the very beginning Tina had insisted to stay separate with her husband and therefore, quarrel had began and had also denied the suggestion that deceased Prafulkumar had informed that he was the only son of Page 24 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined the aged parents and Jassiben was divorcee staying with them and therefore, Prafulkumar had denied to get separate and thus, quarrel began. She denied the suggestion that since Tina had started quarrels to stay separate, therefore, her father-in-law Ishwarlal and accused Godavariben had called deceased Tina's father.
9.13 In the cross-examination, the witness has affirmed that four months prior to the incident, her father had gone to the house of the accused and had rebuked them, but denied the suggestion that at that time, Tinaben had insisted to stay separate and therefore, her father had asked the father-in-law and mother-in-law to allow Tinaben and her husband to stay separately. She affirmed that after her father had visited their house, Tinaben and Prafulkumar started staying separately, but denied the suggestion that after staying separately, there were often quarrels between Tinaben and her husband - Prafulkumar. 9.14 The witness - PW9 was the person, who lastly saw both the deceased. This fact however, does not get corroborated by any of the witness. The evidence from Patel dispensary could have thrown light to corroborate the evidence of both deceased visiting PW9 at 8 in the evening. The witness has alleged of Page 25 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined harassment, but has not specified the kind of harassment or described the harassment meted out to deceased Tinaben as the daughter-in-law. Though this witness had been in close contact with deceased Tinaben, and when, both the deceased, husband and wife, found it fit to hand over their son aged about one year to her, has not clarified the nature of harassment. What becomes clear through the evidence is that the father of deceased Tinaben and husband of PW9 both have reprimanded the accused asking the accused to make deceased stay separately and four months prior to the incident of suicide, deceased Tinaben and deceased Prafulkumar were staying separately.
9.15 The witness does not know the nature of harassment to Prafulkumar, who was a brother of accused Nos.1 to 4 and 5 and son to accused No.3 - Godavariben. The only allegation is that four days prior to the incident, Prafulkumar was slapped in the market. However, this witness does not name any of the accused who are alleged to have slapped the brother. However the fact gets clear that after the visit of the father i.e. the complainant of the present matter, they were allowed to stay separate. The further evidence that could be gathered is that the sisters were not happy with the only brother and sister-in-law staying Page 26 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined separately and therefore, in the evidence of this witness, she states that when her father and husband had scolded accused mother-in-law and the sisters-in-law, at that time, Shardaben (A1), who is Sarpanch of the village had stated that she would not allow them to stay separate. Thus, the whole quarrel, as could be gathered from the evidence is the father and the husband of the present witness (P.W.9) insisting the parents of the deceased Prafulkumar to separate them from the house and the sisters and mother were not in that favour. The witness has clearly affirmed that the father, accused sisters, and the accused mother had consented for the separation, after the visit of her father - the complainant.
9.16 PW7 - Kishorbhai Thakkar is the cousin i.e. uncle's son of the deceased Prafulkumar Ishwarlal Thakkar. According to him, after one year of the marriage, they had started residing separately and out of the wedlock, they had a son named Janak, who according to the witness was staying with the complainant - Haribhai Naranbhai (PW2). The witness does not know the reason of their committing suicide.
9.17 The witness stated that on 04.10.2003, the grandmother of the deceased Prafulkumar had died and on 05.10.2003, Page 27 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Prafulkumar and Tinaben died by ablazing themselves. This witness, because of the death of the grandmother of the deceased Prafulkumar, was at the house of the Lalitkumar Bhogilal at Ogandas Society, where too, he was staying. He had gone in the prayer meet at night on 05.10.2003 at the house of Lalitkumar Bhogilal and at about 11 p.m., 2-4 persons had come to call, who informed the witness that his brother's house got burned and the doors were closed from inside and therefore, he and the elders of the family rushed there and saw the doors closed and the flames of fire on. The neighbours had broken the window, to douse the fire by pouring water. Witness states that he saw Tinaben and Prafulkumar got burnt so they were taken to the Referral Hospital, where the Doctor declared them dead. 9.18 The witness states that the Doctor had informed him to give Janvajog complaint and therefore, the witness had gone to Deodar Police Station. He states that the police had written the complaint and he had signed it. Thereafter, the police had come to the hospital to undertake the process. The postmortem was done at the Referral Hospital at Deodar. The family members had taken the possession of the dead body and in the cremation, all the members of the Tinaben's house were present. The witness Page 28 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined states that in the house of Tinaben, bed, mattress and all other furniture, fixtures got burnt.
9.19 The witness states that his further statement was recorded by the police. At that time, he was given 10 notes of Rs.100/- denomination and a cover with keys of cupboard, one ladies purse having notes of Rs.50/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.10/- and few coins in total of Rs.6/-, ladies goggles and an artificial Mangalsutra, which he accepted and signed the receipt. According to him, he had also signed the receipt for receiving the dead body. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that Shardaben (A1), Kokilaben (A5), Kailashben (A4) are staying separately since many years from their parents and he affirmed that in the family, Ishwarlal, Godavariben and the daughter Jashuben, three were staying together. He also stated that since the marriage of Prafulkumar, his wife Tinaben had insisted to stay separate from the family and therefore, there were often quarrels because of that, and to resolve the dispute, Ishwarbhai and Godavariben had called father of Tinaben. Harilalbhai had come and resolving the dispute, when Prafulkumar and Tinaben had asked of staying separate and on insistence of Harilal - PW2, they were made to stay separate. He stated that marriage Page 29 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined of Kokilaben had taken place at Chalvada Village, but she was staying at Deodar and stated that Prafulkumar and Tinaben, after staying separately, they were residing on the upper floor of Kokilaben's (A5) house and also affirmed that there too they often quarrelled therefore, Kokilaben had asked them to vacate the house. Thereafter, both of them started staying in Kanubhai's house. He also further affirmed that after staying at Kanubhai's house, the quarrel between Tinaben and Prafulkumar continued. He states that he was informed by Prafulkumar about the quarrel as he was talking with him. He stated that the incident occurred on the day of Dusshera. They had taken a vow for Garba of Tinaben's son - Janak before the goddess and that was celebrated. The Garbo was taken out from Godavariben's house and on the last day of Navratri, the grandmother of Prafulkumar died. He denied of any harassment from the accused to both the deceased, and in the last rites, he stated that Tinaben's father - Harilal and the uncle and others were all present.
9.20 PW7 - Kishorekumar Thakkar, was the person who was handed over the currency notes and the keys of the cupboard, which was of the Bank where deceased Prafulkumar was Page 30 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined serving. Mark 13/2 shows as seizure memo and on Mark 5/7 identifying his signature as a receipt of receiving the dead bodies. Both the documents though referred were not exhibited in evidence.
9.21 It has also come on record that PW7 - Kishorekumar Thakkar had given a complaint, which is dated 06.10.2003. Exh.100 was exhibited through the deposition of Police Inspector, Maheshkumar Babulal Naik (PW16). Though the Marks 13/2 and 5/7 were referred to Kishorekumar (PW7) for identifying his signature, Exh.100 at Mark 13/1 was never shown to PW7 to identify his signature or to affirm that it was his complaint given to the police.
9.22 Sharmishtaben (PW9) is the witness, who had seen both the deceased on the very same day, prior to their committing suicide and PW7 is the person, who had immediately gone at the house of deceased after their committing suicide. As per Sharmishtaben (PW9), the immediate cause of suicide was the slap, which deceased Prafulkumar received in the market, while going to the office. She, in the evidence has given a general statement that Tinaben was suffering harassment from sisters- in-law and mother-in-law and Prafulkumar was also having Page 31 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined harassment from his house. In cross-examination, she clarifies that the incident of slap had occurred two to four days prior to the date of suicide.
9.23 The evidence of rest of the witnesses would be required to be evaluated, to examine the fact whether this slap in the market received by Prafulkumar, while on his way to office, was the cause of suicide. The fact also becomes clear in the evidence of Sharmishtaben, that the father of Sharmishtaben and Tinaben i.e. the complainant was insisting the parents of deceased Prafulkumar to make them stay separate from their family. For that purpose, the husband of Sharmishtaben and father of Sharmishtaben, the complainant, had even rebuked the parents of Prafulkumar. The evidence also comes in the deposition that Shardaben (A1) the sister of deceased Prafulkumar was Sarpanch of the village, had threatened them that she would not allow them to stay. The context, in which this evidence was given, was in relation to the complainant father and the husband of Shardaben, who had scolded the accused to make them separate, if they would not find themselves comfortable with both the deceased.
Page 32 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 9.24 The slap is to a younger brother by elder sisters. Whether slap to a brother could be considered as a direct cause for suicide. Ordinarily, when siblings are in their growing age, they often slap and beat each other, they generally do not go in depression or get offended. Parents do not file criminal complaint against their children for brothers and sisters fighting and quarreling when they are raising them. Whether after marriage the position changes, and becomes a prestige issue, falling on ego. Whether a slap can be considered as a clear evidence of direct or indirect act of incitement to commit suicide. The another cause projected is pain, sustained because of staying separately.
9.25 The evidence of Kishorebhai (PW7), cousin of deceased Prafulkumar, reflects the fact that after the marriage of Prafulkumar, his wife Tina was demanding to get separate from the family and that there were often quarrels for that purpose, and to resolve the quarrel, the father of Tinaben was called and in resolution it was decided that deceased Prafulkumar and deceased Tinaben would stay separate.
10. Exh.80 is stated to be the report in connection to complaint of Kishorebhai Chhaganlal Thakkar (PW7). The report Page 33 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined was exhibited through the evidence of Chandubhai Jivram Thakor (PW13). His brief deposition at Exh.79 is in connection with the Accidental Death Report No.8/2003 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., which was noted at 1.30 on 06.10.2003. The witness was examined only to produce Exh.80. There was no cross- examination from the side of the accused.
10.1 Maheshkumar Babulal Naik (PW16) was the police officer on 06.10.2003 at Deodar Police Station. He was serving as a Police Sub-inspector (P.S.I.). He received the Accidental Death Report No.8/2003 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. of Kishorebhai (PW7). As per his deposition, since the dead body of Minaben @ Tinaben and Prafulkumakr Ishwarlal Thakkar were at Refral Hospital, Deodar, he sent a requisition for inquest to Executive Magistrate, Deodar. In the presence of the Executive Magistrate inquest panchnama of both the dead bodies were drawn, and after recording the Postmortem Form, the dead bodies were sent to panel doctor for P.M. The witness further states, which becomes relevant, that since the accidental death was of deceased Minaben @ Tinaben and the marriage span was of two and half year therefore, message was sent for an investigation by an officer of the rank of Dy. S.P. Page 34 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined
11. Provisions in Cr.P.C regarding enquiry for death reported as suicide and investigation for cognizable offence would require a reference here. Section 174 and section 154 of Cr.P.C makes distinction laying down procedure to be adopted by the police. Section 174 of the Cr.P.C reads as under:
"174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.--
(1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any); such marks appear to have been inflicted.
(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate.
(3) When--
(i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven
years of her marriage; or
(ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman; or Page 35 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined
(iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and any relative of the woman has made a request in this behalf; or
(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or
(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State Government, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless.
(4) The following Magistrates are empowered to hold inquests, namely, any District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or the District Magistrate."
12. The object of inquest panchnama is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under unnatural circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the cause of death. The question with regard to the details about the death and the circumstances of the death are not to be examined in the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. When in a case, which involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage, the body would be forwarded to the nearest civil surgeon with a view to examination of the body.
12.1 Exh.73 - Inquest Panchnama is addressed to Divisional Magistrate in connection with the Accidental Death Report Page 36 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined No.8/2003, which reflects that the said panchnama was drawn in presence of two panchas, as were called by the Executive Magistrate and Police Sub-Inspector. The Inquest Panchnama was drawn in presence of three panchas at the P.M. Room of Refral Hospital, Deodar. The panchas in presence of the Executive Magistrate and Police Sub-Inspector expressed the opinion that the death was because of burning. The Inquest Panchnama was drawn on 06.10.2003 between 7.30 to 9.00 hours in the morning.
12.2 Exh.74 is the panchnama drawn on the same day between 16.30 to 16.50 hours. The panchnama is in connection with Accidental Death Report No.8/2003 in presence of Scientific Officer R.M. Darji, FSL (Mobile), Banskantha Palanpur, and from the place of incident three pieces of half burnt clothes were collected, which had the stench of kerosene. The pieces were of Sari and all the three pieces had sand stuck on it, the police seized the same. The panchnama (Exh.74) describes orange colour polyester sari, while in the said panchnama, there is no reference of clothes of deceased Prafulkumar. 12.3 As per the deposition of PW16, since the marriage span was two and a half years and therefore, message was sent for Page 37 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined investigation by Deputy Superintendent of Police. Exh.77 is the Panchnama of the place of incident, which was drawn in connection with the Accidental Death Report No.8/2003 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. The place was shown by PW7 - Thakkar Kishorkumar Chhaganlal. The Panchnama was drawn on 06.10.2003 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deodar between 09.30 to 11.00 hrs., has noted the condition of the house after the fire and prior to seizing the intact currency notes, as referred above, seized note book from the show case with the key of the Nagarik Bank treasury. The Deputy Superintendent of Police records before the Panchas of seizing one note book from the show case. The note book on the first page refers to writing in blue ink in Gujarati language. The first line recording the word as "ghar na tras thi javu chhu" and the last line by recording the word "boleli". The Panchnama Exh.77 records that the middle part refers to the cause of death. 12.4 It requires to be mentioned here that PW7 was not shown the note book or the writing of the first page in the note book, which is termed as suicide note, though the Panchnama Exh.77 was drawn in his presence. The witness PW7 in the deposition- in-chief states of his additional statement recorded by the police Page 38 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined and also of 10 notes of Rs.100/- denomination and the key with cover of the cupboard, one ladies purse with the notes of Rs.50/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.10/- denomination and the coins in total of Rs.6/- and ladies goggles as well as an artificial Mangalsutra. The witness was not put to question or referred about the note book, which was found during the course of Panchnama Exh.77. Exh.77 does not bear the signature of PW7. It is not necessary that the person who shows the place of incident is required to sign the document, but there is no illegality in taking the signature of such witness who was present to show the panch and the police the place of incident. Though the suicide note was noted in the Panchnama Exh.77 on 06.10.2003 between 9.30 to 11.00 hrs. in the morning, no action was taken in connection with the suicide note, no FIR was registered on that day.
13. In the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma And Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh And Anr. [(2016) 9 SCC 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the distinction between the investigation on inquiry under Section 174 and investigation under Section 154, wherein there was a dispute raised that earlier first information regarding unnatural death amounted to FIR under Section 154 Page 39 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Cr.P.C. and that there cannot be any second FIR or fresh investigation of any subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence. It was held as under:
"The proceedings under 174 have a very limited scope. The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under 174 of CrPC. Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to mention those details in the inquest report. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. The procedure under 174 is for the purpose of discovering the cause of death, and the evidence taken was very short. When the body cannot be found or has been buried, there can be no investigation under 174. This section is intended to apply to cases in which an inquest is necessary. The proceedings under this Section should be kept more distinct from the proceedings taken on the complaint. Whereas the starting point of the powers of police was changed from the power of the officer in charge of a police station to investigate into a cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate, to the reduction of the first information regarding commission of a cognizable offence, whether received orally or in writing, into writing. As such, the objective of such placement of provisions was clear which was to ensure that the recording of the first information should be the starting point of any investigation by the police. The purpose of registering FIR is to set the machinery of criminal investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the police report and only after registration of FIR, beginning of investigation in a case, collection of evidence during investigation and formation of the final opinion is the sequence which results in filing of a report under 173 of the Cr.P.C. It is reiterated, that the investigating officer is not obliged to investigate at the stage of inquest, or to ascertain as to who were the assailants.
13.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that Sections 174 and 175 of Cr.P.C. is a complete code in itself for the purpose of Page 40 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined "inquiry" in cases of accidental or suspicious death. The observation is as under:
"In such view of the matter, Sections 174 and 175 of CrPC afford a complete Code in itself for the purpose of "Inquiries" in cases of accidental or suspicious deaths and are entirely distinct from the "investigation" under 157 CrPC, wherein if an officer in-charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate, he shall proceed in person to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case."
13.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court by explaining the difference between the inquiry under section 154 Cr.P.C. and the inquiry as contemplated under section 174 Cr.P.C, held as under:
"On a careful scrutiny of materials on record, the inquiry which was conducted for the purpose of ascertaining whether the death is natural or unnatural cannot be categorized under information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence within the meaning and import of 154 CrPC. On information received by P.S. Mulana, the police made an inquiry as contemplated under 174 CrPC. After holding an inquiry, the police submitted its report before the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambala stating therein that it was a case of hanging and no cognizable offence is found to have been committed. In the report, it was also mentioned that the father of the deceased-R.P. Sharma (PW-1) does not want to take any further action in the matter. In view of the above discussion, it clearly goes to show that what was undertaken by the police was an inquiry under 174 CrPC which was limited to the extent of natural or unnatural death and the case was closed. Whereas, the condition precedent for recording of FIR is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence and in the case on hand, it leaves no matter of doubt that the intimation was an information of the nature contemplated under 174 CrPC of the Code and it could not be categorized as information disclosing a cognizable offence. Also, there is no material to show that the police after conducting investigation submitted a report under 173 CrPC as contemplated, before Page 41 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined the competent authority, which accepted the said report and closed the case."
13.3 Therefore, held that the investigation under section 174 Cr.P.C. is distinct from the investigation as contemplated under Section 154 Cr.P.C. relating to commission of the cognizable offence and answered the issue raised accordingly:
"In view of the above, the investigation on an inquiry under under Section 174 CrPC is distinct from the investigation as contemplated under Section 154 CrPC relating to commission of a cognizable offence and in the case on hand there was no FIR registered at the time of incident, neither any investigation nor any report Section 173 CrPC was submitted. Therefore, challenge to impugned FIR registered afterwards, could not be assailed on the ground that it was second FIR in the garb of which investigation or fresh investigation of the same incident was initiated."
14. Suicide note came to the knowledge of the Deputy Superintendent of Police - PW15 - Balubhai Jethabhai Gharchar on the next day of suicide. He has referred to visiting the place in connection with the accidental death report and drawing the Panchnama between 9.30 to 11.00 hrs. in presence of Panchas. PW15 stated that the evidence, which was received during the Panchnama was seized and thereafter, statement of the concerned witnesses were recorded. Very glaring fact which becomes noticeable is that in spite of having the evidence of suicide note on 06.10.2003 and recording the statements of the Page 42 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined concerned witnesses, the Deputy Superintendent of Police did not deem fit to file an FIR after receiving the suicide note and after exactly one month i.e. 06.11.2003, for the first time, father of the deceased Tinaben - Harilal Narandas Thakkar (PW2) gave a complaint alleging physical and mental cruelty to his daughter and having the reasons for the suicide, the offence under Sections 498A, 306, 114 of the IPC was registered and the further investigation was handed over to the Police Sub- Inspector, Deodar. The correspondence forwarding the investigation was produced at Exh.82. The witness - Deputy Superintendent of Police identified Exh.27 as the complaint before him, which was reduced in writing on a blank paper and the complainant having signed it in his presence which was also read over to the complainant. The witness - PW15, Dy. S.P. also identified Exh.77 as being drawn in his presence. In the examination-in-chief, PW15 was shown the note Ex.26, which was seized from the place of offence, wherein he identifies his signature as well as of two Panchas. Exhs.84 and 85 is an outward requisition in connection with the accidental death to the FSL for the examination of the viscera of both the deceased and Exh.85 is about 3 pieces of clothes described as half-burned white colour cloth (2) half-burned designed cloth, (3) half-burned Page 43 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined piece of orange colour polyester saree, all the three pieces had the smell of kerosene. The witness identifies Exh.86 as the receipt executed by PW7 - Kishorbhai Chhaganlal Thakkar on the very same date 06.10.2003 of receiving the articles, as noted in the Panchnama Exh.77.
14.1 Though Exh.26, the note book was found on 6.10.2003 and was recorded by way of Panchnama Exh.77 and the prosecution in the chief-examination also showed the note to PW15, but the said document Exh.26 the suicide note was not referred to PW7, though it was observed that it was seized during his presence. The articles which had been returned back to PW7 by way of receipt Exh.86 were subsequently seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in presence of Panchas while prior to those articles being seen, the note book was already recorded to have been seized in the Panchnama. In spite of having the suicide note on 06.10.2003 and even recording the statements of the concerned witnesses, no FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. was filed. Since no complaint was recorded on 06.10.2003 under section 154 of the Cr.P.C., it would have been possible that no information was received relating to commission of a cognizable offence. PW15 has stated that he had recorded Page 44 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined statements of the concerned witnesses. In spite of that, no FIR was drawn on 06.10.2003. Exh.77 was in connection with the inquiry under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. PW15 - Deputy Superintendent of Police does not state, that after handing over the currency note and the articles by way of Exh.62 to PW7, he had handed over the note book Exh.26, to the PSO. Whether the suicide note Exh.26 remained in the custody of PW15 till the filing of the FIR on 06.11.2003 for exactly a month is not clarified by PW15 - Deputy Superintendent of Police.
15. In the case of Jai Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar , [(2012) 4 SCC 379], the Supreme Court held as under:
"12. The FIR in criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it looses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations / deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant's version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma And Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh And Anr. [(2016) 9 Page 45 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined SCC], has held that delay of lodging FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. Further held that on account of delay, FIR not only gets bereft of advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story.
17. Exh.26 is the note book, where the cover bearing photo of Lord Krishna with a calf is an advertisement of Char Bhuja 100 incense sticks. It is almost fifteen lines of the note book on the first page considered as suicide note. It is stated to be in the handwriting of the deceased Prafulkumar. The suicide note does not state of any harassment or cruelty to the deceased Tinaben. The suicide note also does not refer to alleged slap given to the deceased Prafulkumar in the market while going towards his work place. The note says that his mother and sister have contributed in removing him from the house. The note also says that he is leaving because of the harassment in the house, further stating that his mother only prefers his sisters, his brother has gone and because of odious behaviour of Shardaben (A1), he has been removed from the house. The writing Exh.26 also makes a mention of some "Joriyo" being the son of the mother. The writing further gives regards to Chandubhai, Page 46 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined respect to Harilal (complainant) and remembrance to Kishorebhai (PW7) and further addressing the mother, it has been stated that no one would now make a request to the mother. Further, noting that Jassi (A2) has destroyed his life and Kokila (A3) has abused.
17.1 Exh.26 - suicide note does not bear the signature of deceased Prafulkumar. By the evidence on record of PW6 - peon of Bhabhar Nagarik Sahakari Bank at Deodar and PW10 - Indukumar Vitthaldas Thakkar, Bank Manager, the evidence of deceased Prafulkumar serving as a cashier in the Bank was brought on record. Both these witnesses were called upon to identify the hand writings of the deceased. PW6 - Peon was declared hostile. PW6 - Harshadbhai Jayrambhai Thakkar states that he was peon in the Bank for the last 5 years. The deceased Prafulkumar was cashier and the Bank Manager is Indukumar Vitthaldas Thakkar - PW10. He stated that he only knew that it was an accidental death and has no further knowledge. He was given to identify Mark 5/9 and Mark 5/10. He stated that he was not knowing the hand writings therein and that he had also not given a statement that deceased Tinaben and Prafulkumar had died by burning. On declaring him hostile, he denied the Page 47 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined suggestion that at the place of offence, he was shown one note book by the police with the handwriting of deceased - Prafulkumar Ishwarlal. He also denied the fact, about the bank statement dated 13.09.2003 seized by the police during the course of investigation for identification of handwriting of deceased Prafulkumar Ishwarlal Thakkar and that the statement was in carbon copy with the handwriting of the deceased Prafulkumar and also denied of stating before the police of the handwriting in the notebook and that in the bank statement were similar as of deceased Prafulkumar. In the cross- examination from the side of accused, the witness stated that the deceased Prafulkumar had never talked of any harassment from his sisters and mother.
17.2 This PW6 was made to identify the handwriting of the deceased Prafulkumar, but in the chief examination, he denied of knowing the handwriting in Mark 5/9 and Mark 5/10. In the chief examination, he has not been asked about the suicide note or the note book. The cross-examination denies of comparing the handwriting in the bank statement and the note book and giving his opinion of it being generally similar.
Page 48 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 17.3 PW10 - Bank Manager - Indukumar Vitthaldas Acharya examined at Exh.71 was serving at Deodar during the time of the incident. His length of service was of 26 years. He stated that at the time of incident, he was Bank Manager. Deceased Prafulkumar was working as cashier since 6-7 years. His working in the Bank was good. He received the information of the death of Prafulkumar and his wife by burning. The police had shown him a note. He was made to examine Exh.26 during the trial. He in his deposition stated that the handwritings were similarly different and he states that he could identify the handwriting of Prafulkumar since he was serving under him and was at that time preparing the loan recovery statements and those statement he had given to the police. The witness has referred to Mark 5/10, which he identified as of Prafulkumar. The original copy he brought during the deposition and after identifying the statement for the period between 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, as the recovery statement dated 13.09.2004, he identified his signature as a Bank Manager and that of Prafulkumar and thereafter, on comparing Mark 5/10 with the original, the carbon copy was placed in evidence at Exh.75. The witness - Bank Manager was cross-examined. He stated that the note book which was shown to him was not sealed and it was Page 49 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined open. Also stated that he had not come to a conclusive opinion on seeing the handwriting in the note book to be of deceased Prafulkumar. He found the handwritings different and stated that he had also informed that the handwritings were different. Thus, PW6 and PW10 have not stated that the handwritings in the suicide note Exh.26 were of the deceased Prafulkumar. PW6 denies of police showing him any note book from the place of offence.
17.4 As per the Panchas, PW11 - Hidaitulla Rasulbai Shiroya and PW12 - Ashokkumar Jayramdas, Exh.77 was drawn on 06.10.2003 between 9.30 to 11.00 before Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deodar, Exh.77 records that it was in presence of PW7
- Kishorbhai Chhaganlal Thakkar. The book containing the suicide note was seized in the presence of Kishorbhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar, but during the course of trial, he was not shown to identify Exh.26. He would have been the right person to identify the handwriting of his cousin deceased Prafulkumar. Very interestingly, it would be apt to note that the name of PW7 has been referred in the suicide note Exh.26, where the deceased has given him his regards.
Page 50 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 17.5 P.W7 was not shown his complaint in spite of stating that he had given a 'Janvajog' complaint before the police, wherein he had put his signature. Exh.100 is dated 06.10.2003, it does not note the time, however, the time could be gathered from document Exh.80, where the Accidental Death Report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the time of recording the information is shown as 06.10.2003 at 1.30 hours, while the time of incident is noted as 05.10.03 at 23.00 hours. The note below Exh.80 expresses that it was forwarded to Police Station Officer, Deodar after registering the complaint at 1.30 along with the papers with the requisition to accept the same. Exh.80 does not disclose of suicide note being forwarded in the documents. The suicide note (Exh.26) was recovered through the panchnama of place of incident (Exh.77) on 06.10.2003 between 9.30 to 11.00 hours. Since there is no document on record of Exh.26 forwarded to P.S.O., it could be inferred that the said document Exh.26, as a suicide note lied with the Dy. S.P. Deodar (PW15). 17.6 Though suicide note was recovered between 9.30 to 11.00 hours on 06.10.2003, no FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. was filed for the cognizable offence. For the investigation towards Exh.80 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. no final report was filed. Page 51 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Section 175 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Police Officers proceedings under Section 174 in connection to the inquiry summon any person for the purpose of said investigation and any other person, who appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case and every person so summon shall be bound to attain and answer thoroughly all questions other than questions, the answers to which have a tendency to expose him to criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. Sub-section (2) of Section 175 clarifies that if the facts do not disclose a cognizable offence, to which Section 170 applies, such person shall not be required by the police officer to attain a Magistrate's Court. 17.7 PW13 had recorded the report at Exh.80 of Accidental Death under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and PW16 - Maheshkumar Babulal Naik, was handed over the Accidental Death Report No.8/2003 for investigation, he does not clarify about filing any report in connection with the inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on summoning any person in that regard. PW16 does not state of the panchnama drawn by Dy. S.P. (PW15). He refers to 'Muddamal Pawati' forwarded to Executive Magistrate, Deodar and refers to the panchnama (Exh.74), which is about three pieces of the polyester sari seized by him on 06.10.2003 between Page 52 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 16.30 to 16.50, but there is no mention of Exh.77 drawn on 06.10.2003 between 9.30 to 11.00 hours.
17.8 The deposition of Police Inspector Maheshkumar Babulal Naik (PW16) without any context directly refers to the complaint dated 06.11.2003 before S.D.P.O. Deodar given by Harilal Narandas (PW2). The Police Inspector (PW16) states that after receiving the complaint it was sent to P.S.O. for registration under section 157 Cr.P.C. and he had started the investigation of the offence, wherein the investigation documents in connection to Accidental Death Report No.8/2003 with the statements of the connecting persons were included and according to him, as he found sufficient evidence, he arrested accused Shardaben Ishwarlal Thakkar and Jasiben Ishwarlal Thakkar and sent them to Court custody. Further, he says that he received the Forensic Science Laboratory report with regard to the clothes found from the place of incident in connection with Accidental Death Report No.8/2003,which he called for and thereafter, on his transfer the further investigation was handed over to PSI Shri R.G. Vaghela. 17.9 PW16 is silent about the suicide note, he is not reporting about any document he received in the form of Exh.77, the Page 53 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined panchnama, nor he has stated about the bank report of the Loan Recovery Statement by deceased Prafulkumar. The F.S.L. report of the burnt clothes were sent by 'Rawangi Note' at Exh.85 by Dy. S.P. Deodar. That report was called for from the F.S.L. by PW16. The deposition further states that the further investigation was handed over to P.S.I. Shri R.G. Vaghela, but that Police Sub-Inspector has not been examined by the prosecution. PW16 identified the documents Exh.77, 82, 80, 88, 73, 74, 89, 90, 91, 92 and 93, bearing his signature and those documents, which were sent to him or which were in his presence.
17.10 He identified Exh.18 and 19 as P.M. report. Exh.84 and 85, the Rawangi note, which he states was in his signature and Dy. S.P. In whole of his deposition, the witness is not making mention of Exh.26 and Exh.77, though, Exh.84 and 85 was signed by him and Dy. S.P., which shows that the investigation done by Dy. S.P. was within the knowledge of PW16, inspite of that PW16 keeps silence about Exh.26 suicide note and Exh.77 the panchnama showing the presence of suicide note in the house. PW16, would have certainly known about the action taken by Dy. S.P., as he in his deposition stated that since the Page 54 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined marriage span was of two and half year, the message was sent by him for an investigation by an officer in the rank of Dy. S.P. 17.11 Mark 5/10 was placed in evidence at Exh. 75 by the Bank Manager, the statement bears the signature of the Branch Manager for the Bhabhar Vibhag Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Deodar Branch. The statement is about the recovery of the loan amount which is dated 13.09.2003 for the period from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003. The date of suicide is 05.10.2003. 17.12 This Court has examined Exh. 26-the suicide note and Exh. 75-the Bank statement in the hand writing of the deceased, the carbon copy which was compared with the original and put on record at Exh. 75. The hand writing in Exh. 75 are in regular course of his work, and those natural handwriting does not find similarity with the writing at Exh.26. The Bank Manager who was accustomed to the writing of the deceased had not approved of Exh.26 being in the handwriting of the deceased-Prafulkumar. The custody of Exh. 26, from the date 06.10.2003 till 06.11.2003 is not explained by PW16-Police Sub Inspector, Deodar nor by PW15-Dy. SP, Deodar. PW11-panch witness had deposed that the showcase was burnt and the police had seized the Diary from Page 55 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined that showcase. PW11 further stated that the key of the cupboard of the Bank and the currency note with the coins and the lady's purse were handed over in his presence to PW7-Kishorekumar. He also further states in the cross-examination that the note book was removed by the Police and PW7-Kishorekumar, while no such fact is deposed by Kishorebhai himself. While the deposition of Kishorebhai in the examination-in-chief clarifies that police had recorded his further statement and at that time he was handed over the currency notes, key of the bank cupboard, ladies purse. PW11, Panch, clarifies that all furniture and showcase were totally burnt. PW11 could not locate the direction of the wall where from the showcase, the notebook was removed and further clarifies that no part of the note book was burnt, while it had remains of carbon on it which he describes as soot deposits on the book. Perusal of Exh.26 shows that such black soot of flames deposits are only on the first page and overleaf the cover of book, while no such fire soot could be seen on the cover which has the photo of Lord Krishna, nor on other pages, while slight mark of black carbon could be seen on the last page of the book and on the opposite side of the cover which is of the advertisement of Charbhuja Fragrance Company for different coloured incense boxes.
Page 56 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 17.13 Further, the Dy.S.P. though had sent all the articles for FSL report, had not sent Exh.26 for hand writing expert Report. 17.14 From the evidence of PW9-Sharmishtaben and PW7- Kishorekumar, it can be said that the dispute was regarding both the deceased staying away from the family. PW9- Sharmishtaben in her deposition clearly affirms that after her father-PW2 had visited the house of the accused, Tinaben and Prafulkumar were permitted to stay separately by the father of Prafulkumar. Here the father of Prafulkumar has not been made an accused. The evidence of PW9-Sharmishtaben states that it was her father-PW2 and her husband Dineshkumar who both had gone to the house of accused and insisted both the deceased be made to stay separate. Four months prior to the incident, her father had gone to the house of the accused. Another reason for suicide, which PW9-Sharmishtaben states was the slap given by sisters to Prafulkumar in the market, while he was going to his place of service, Though, Sharmishtaben was closed to Tinaben, has not named the accused who had slapped deceased- Prafulkumar. According to her, the incident of slap had occurred two to four days prior the incident of suicide. There is a general Page 57 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined statement by PW9-Sharmishtaben that the deceased Tinaben was harassed by the sisters-in-law and mother-in-law, at the same time, had stated that the deceased were having harassment from the house. What kind of harassment was there had not been explained, nor any incident of harassment or the date and place of incident has been described. PW9 stated that Tina was harassed for minor reasons and stated that her sisters- in-law and mother-in-law were harassing her and beating her, but no such fact is reflected in the suicide note-Exh. 26. There is no mention of harassment meted out to the deceased, Tinaben nor there is any mention of the slap received by the deceased, two-three days prior to the suicide.
17.15 Exh.26, if is to be believed then the issue was with regard to staying separate. As per the suicide note, the deceased Prafulkumar was not willing to stay separate. While the deposition of PW9- Sharmishtaben shows that it was the complainant and her PW9 husband insisted that Prafulkumar and Tina should stay separate and thereafter, father of Prafulkumar permitted them to stay separately, while accused were against it.
Page 58 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined
18. In the case of State Of Kerala And Ors. Vs S.Unnikrishnan Nair And Ors. [2015 (9) SCC 639], the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the case of Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal [(2005) 2 SCC 659] observed that, the two Judge Bench while dealing with the concept of abetment under Section 107 of I.P.C. and, especially, in the context of suicide note, held as under :
"In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.
18.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Unnikrishnan (supra), in Para-18, held as under:
"Coming to the case at hand, as we have stated earlier, the suicide note really does not state about any continuous conduct of harassment and, in any case, the facts and circumstances are quite different. In such a situation, we are disposed to think that the High Court is justified in quashing the proceeding, for it is an accepted position in law that where no prima facie case is made out against the accused, then the High Court is obliged in law to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and quash the proceedings."
18.2 Here in the instant case too, there is no reference of any act or instance in the suicide note, whereby the appellant were alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or Page 59 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined intentionally aided or instigated deceased to commit the act of suicide. The suicide note states nothing in the context to deceased Tinaben. Sisters were against Prafulkumar leaving the house, which also becomes clear from the evidence of the witnesses. While suicide note refers to Shardaben (A1) responsible for separating them. There is no reference of continuous harassment to Tinaben in fact there is no reference of Tinaben in the suicide note. There is no mention of slap in the suicide note or deceased going in depression because of the slap. 18.3 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 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, Page 60 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 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 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..."
18.4 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 61 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 18.5 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."
18.6 In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it 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 Page 62 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 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. 18.7 In the case of Jagdishraj Khatta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2019) 9 SCC 248], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the facts held that, the appellant, a Forest Range Officer, was residing with the deceased (his wife) and two minor children. On 07.01.1990, within seven years of the deceased's marriage with the appellant, the deceased used appellant's gun to kill herself and after the funeral ceremonies, on 08.01.1990 at around 11 p.m., the deceased's cousin lodged FIR against the appellant, alleging that the appellant drove the deceased to commit suicide, as he continuously subjected deceased to cruelty, harassment, physical violence and even mistreated her and insulted her. On 13.01.1990, father of the deceased produced a letter, supporting the FIR, allegedly written to him by the deceased.
18.8 The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the allegations were not only extremely general in nature, but also the same were never raised by the family of the deceased when Page 63 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined they were present at the time of preparation of the inquest report and that the FIR was filed almost 1½ days after the incident and the prosecution had not examined any neighbour of appellant and deceased to substantiate the allegation. Further held that letter allegedly written by deceased not proved to have been written by deceased and surrounded by suspicious circumstances, while handwriting expert testified that writing in letter was the same as that of certain notebooks, no independent proof led regarding the writing in aforesaid notebooks and the said letter was handed over to police after three days of its receipt, casting serious doubt on authenticity of letter. 18.9 As referred herein above on the analysis of the deposition of witness the authenticity of suicide note Exh.26 becomes doubtful.
18.10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao [2008 (15) SCC 582], has held that not every kind of harassment would amount to 'cruelty' within the meaning of provision to constitute the offence punishable therein. Every case has to be analysed on its individual facts to assess whether the act of the accused persons constitutes Page 64 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined cruelty. Further, cruelty can either be mental or physical, and it is to be seen on the facts of each case.
18.11 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:
"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."
19. There is a delay of about one month in filing the complaint. The legal custody of Exh.26 for this period of one month could not be brought on record. PW16 - PSI has not stated of receiving Exh.26 or Exh.77.
19.1 The complainant - Harilal Naranlal Thakkar as PW2 was examined at Exh.23 and according to his deposition, they are five brothers, his elder three brothers are staying at Deodar. He had two daughters. The eldest is Lalita @ Sharmishta - PW9 and the younger one deceased Tinaben. He also refers to two sons Page 65 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined and the elder Ashokkumar staying at Deodar and the younger one Prakash residing along with him. He states that the deceased Prafulkumar was serving as a cashier in Bhabhar Vibhagiya Nagarik Sahakari Bank and two years prior, his daughter Tinaben had married Prafulkumar and since then, she was staying with her in-laws. The witness states that the deceased Tinaben has no elder brother-in-law or younger brother-in-law, while had five sisters-in-law. The eldest is Shardaben who was married at Vadhiyar and according to his deposition, since 20 to 25 years, she is staying as divorcee. 19.2 His further evidence states that his daughter Tinaben and her husband were earlier staying in joint family and later, they started residing in the house of Kanubhai Manilal Thakkar at Deodar. Another sister-in-law - Kokilaben was married at Village Chalvada and was residing in her own house at Village Deodar near the house of deceased Tinaben in the same street. The third sister-in-law was married in Village Thara and another sister-in- law - Tara is staying at Palanpur and the youngest Jasiben was married at Baldora Village, but since 3 to 4 years, is a divorcee. As per the deposition, all the sisters-in-law were staying with the parents.
Page 66 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 19.3 The complainant's evidence is that after 2 or 3 visits of Tinaben at his house after the marriage, they started harassing deceased Tinaben and if at all, husband of deceased Tinaben would reprimand them on behalf of his wife, then, they would harass him too. According to the complainant, his daughter had not talked to him about harassment, but the complainant's wife had informed him. So according to the complainant, he does not have first hand knowledge of harassment, which he could say of having heard from his own daughter.
19.4 The complainant further states that for this purpose, he, his wife and his son and his brother - Jaswantlal had gone to reprimand once or twice the father and mother of his son-in-law. The complainant states that Shardaben (A1) was the Sarpanch of the Village, who had told him that she would see who would be giving them the house and she will also see how they would stay separately.
19.5 This deposition of the complainant itself clarifies that the dispute was regarding their demand to let the daughter and son- in-law stay separate. Shardaben (A1) had resisted . This very evidence of the complainant clarifies that the complainant and Page 67 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined his family members wanted deceased to be separate, which fact gets corroborated from the evidence of his own daughter - PW9 - Sharmishthaben and even from the evidence of PW7 - Kishorekumar, the cousin of the deceased Prafulkumar. 19.6 Further, the complainant stated that Prafulkumar's father had permitted Prafulkumar to stay separate, while the mother- in-law - Godavariben said that one of her son had died and she would not care if another would die. Godavariben further stated that she does not want sons, but only daughters. The witness stated that the elder brother - Mahendrakumar of his son-in-law had died, who was running a Pan Stall. The evidence of the complainant further states that four months prior, his son-in- law - Prafulkumar had met him, who while crying told him that his four sisters and old lady were harassing them and were not permitting them to live. Therefore, complainant met deceased Prafulkumar's father to rebuke them and according to the complainant, all the accused were present there, at that time, the father of the deceased - Prafulkumar stated that he would permit them to stay separately, the complainant adds that others were speaking negatively. According to the complainant, two Page 68 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined months prior to the incident, his son-in-law and the daughter had started staying in the house of Kanubhai.
Analysis of evidence shows that it was the complainant, who had forced the accused to allow deceased to leave the joint family. The allegation does not relate to the accused and more specifically Shardaben (A1) whose name finds mention in Exh.26 suicide note. The evidence on record is contrary to the contents in the suicide note. The delay in filing FIR and the conduct of complainant itself creates doubt on the credibility of suicide note.
20. In the case of Geo Varghese (supra) relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Shah, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the abetment of suicide by anybody is also an offence under Section 306 IPC. Though, the IPC does not define the word 'Suicide' but the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is 'self-killing'. The word is derived from a modern latin word 'suicidium', 'sui' means 'oneself' and 'cidium' means 'killing'. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of 'self-killing'. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of 'self-killing'. In other words, act of death must be committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the means Page 69 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something.
20.1 In Geo Varghese (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that, what is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further held that, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, observed that what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in Page 70 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased.
21. The evidence of Sharmisthaben (PW9) and evidence of Kishorekumar Thakkar (PW7), if read together with evidence of complainant (PW2) Harilal Thakkar, then it becomes obvious that it was the complainant and the husband of Sharmisthaben, who had insisted the accused and the father of deceased Prafulkumar to separate them. The utterance by mother Godavariben, who has been acquitted by the Trial Court Judge is her pain, as a mother to see her only remaining son getting separate with the daughter-in-law. Neither Sharmisthaben, nor the complainant father could describe any harassment that could be termed as cruelty by the accused to both the deceased. Mere general allegation that the accused were harassing them from the beginning of the marriage life, would not be a sufficient evidence to consider the case under Section 498A IPC. What kind of harassment deceased Tinaben faced could not be explained by her sister-PW9 nor the father-PW2. Every kind of harassment would not amount to cruelty within the meaning of provision to constitute the offence punishable therein. It is not Page 71 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined the case of harassment for any money or other valuables. So there was no demand of dowry in the present case, nor is there any such charge framed. Father, PW2 had no knowledge about any harassment. Deceased Tinaben had not informed the father about any harassment from the sisters-in-law and mother-in- law.
21.1 Here the Trial Court Judge had acquitted accused No.3- Godavariben, the mother of deceased Prafulkumar and the mother-in-law of deceased Tinaben. The Trial Court had also acquitted accused No.4 - Kailashben, sister of deceased Prafulkumar and sister-in-law - Tinaben. The Trial Court Judge convicted accused Nos.1, 2 and 5, sister-in-law/sisters, Sharadaben, Jassiben, and Kokilaben.
21.2 The learned Trial Court Judge's observation becomes significant to mention, bearing the judgment in mind, the learned Judge referring to deceased Prafulkumar, as the only son of Godavariben and the only brother for the sisters, made an assumption that there would have been some cause for both the deceased to leave the aged parents. The Trial Court Judge referring to only brother to the sisters, considered that without Page 72 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined any reason in general circumstances they would not have preferred to stay separate, in spite of that they were leaving separately, and therefore the learned Judge assumed that it could not be denied of dispute, discord and pain, connecting the fact that deceased Tinaben, two hours prior to committing suicide, had left her one year minor son Janak with his aunt Sharmisthaben. The learned Trial Court Judge assumed that if there was no such dispute, discord or objection, and that deceased Prafulkumar had doubts regarding the fidelity of the wife, and if evidence of PW7-Kishorbhai is to be believed that both husband and wife were continuously quarreling and thereafter they had preferred to commit suicide, then they would not have chosen to keep minor Janak at the house of Sharmisthaben, sister of Tinaben, and would have decided to give the child to the parents and sister. The Trial Court Judge on assumption of quarrel and discord observed that the son and the daughter-in-law were forced to stay separately. The defence case of Prafulkumar doubting Tinaben's fidelity, giving birth to premature child and for that reason doubting the paternity of the child, considering the child as not his own, and under that circumstances, leaving the parents and sisters would not have been the right action. The learned Judge assumed that in such Page 73 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined circumstances, Prafulkumar rather would have removed his wife from the family and deserted her, instead of both committing suicide by burning themselves. Considering this fact, the learned Judge concluded that there was no dispute, discord and conflict between the couples.
21.3 The Trial Court Judge has further observed that the engagement and marriage between the couples were with their own will and consent, the learned Judge therefore, presumed that there would have been possibility of both the deceased meeting each other prior to marriage and therefore, Tinaben could have conceived and on that possibility, the learned Judge did not find anything adverse for marital discord, assuming that child being born healthy, within seven months of marriage, the couples as a parent must have been knowing this fact, thus the Trial Court Judge disbelieved the defence that because of Prafulkumar doubting the fidelity of the wife, had deemed fit to stay separately , observing that even after staying separate, both were staying together, if that had been the reason for leaving the house, then the husband would have deserted the wife, which has not occurred in the present case. The Trial Court Judge has also taken judicial note, that seven months old child could be Page 74 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined born mature and that the defence witness Doctor Nitaben in her deposition has not stated that it was a premature child, and from the evidence of the Doctor too, the plea of Prafulkumar doubting Tinaben could not be believed.The learned Judge found it to be a contrary case and did not believe the defence raised. The assumption made by Trial Court Judge was required to be placed on the basis of the evidence on record. The trial cannot be conducted and concluded on assumption. If the trials are to be concluded only on the basis of assumption, then there would not be any necessity of adducing evidence during the trial. Every case has to be examined on the basis of evidence, on the facts and circumstances pleaded.
21.4 The learned Judge could have also assumed that since Tinaben was the only sister-in-law and when she had the responsibility of parents-in-law and five sisters-in-law, she would have found it difficult to stay in the family and thereby must have insisted to stay separate. The Trial Court Judge, was not willing to believe the evidence of PW7-Kishorebhai, noting that the circumstances and facts do not support the testimony of PW7. The Trial Court got carried away assuming the facts under which Prafulkumar and Tinaben had started to stay separate Page 75 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined and had severe their ties with the accused, and gave much weightage to the fact that the marriage span was only of 2½ to 3 years and within that period, leaving their one year old child and committing suicide by burning themselves. 21.5 The evidence of witnesses as of father, the complainant (PW2) and the sister-PW9 brings on record that the father of Tinaben and husband of PW9 had rather forced the father of Prafulkumar to make them separate from the family. Within two months of staying separate, according to the evidence of complainant, both committed suicide. Would it not be possible that both the husband and wife were bearing guilt of staying separate, facing the brunt of social duty of only son looking after the aged parents. They could not have the courage to face the society and as per the evidence of the complainant within two months of staying separate, the couple committed suicide. But such assumption has no place in the criminal trial. Suspicion must be based on credible material and not by arbitrary conclusion.
22. To bring conviction under section 306 IPC, it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to initiate or push the deceased to commit suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, creation Page 76 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined of circumstances, words, which would incite or provoke another person to commit suicide. What becomes instigation is explained in the judgment of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [2001 (9) SCC 618] .
22.1 In Ramesh Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that -
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a willful 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.
Page 77 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 22.2 The three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar (Supra) had an occasion to deal with a case of similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered "you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like." The Court in para-20 has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para-20 of the said judgment reads as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
23. The glaring and significant fact in the present matter is that the complainant father had not deemed fit to file police complaint immediately after the incident of suicide. Had the father known about the suicide note (Exh.26) on the very same day of suicide or day after the suicide, what prevented him to give the complaint immediately to the police. Further, if the evidence had to be believed of the complainant of harassment to Page 78 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined the daughter by all the accused, then the complainant had all the reason to file the police complaint immediately after the incident against the accused.
23.1 Here, in this case the complainant took exactly one month in filing the complaint. The incident had taken place on 06.10.2003 and the complaint has been given on 06.11.2003 after 31 days. PW15 - Dy.S.P. Garchar, had received the complaint of witness PW2. PW15 - Dy. S.P. registered the complaint under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of IPC and forwarded the complaint for investigation to P.S.I. Deodar. P.W.15 identified the complaint Exh.27, which is affirmed by him to be on plain paper and PW15 stated that it was reduced in writing, as dictated by the complainant. Exh.27 shows that it was in S.D.P.O. Office Deodar. On the top of the complaint, the time of starting the recording of complaint is noted as 22.30 hours, meaning thereby on 06.02.2003 during the night at 10.30, the complaint was recorded and it ended at 23.30 hours i.e. 11.30 p.m. The conduct of PW15 becomes very much doubtful, as though by way of Exh.77, he himself had drawn the panchnama in presence of panchas and according to him on 06.10.2003, the book in which the suicide note was written, was Page 79 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined recovered in presence of panch. In spite of that fact, nothing is on record that Exh.26, the book was deposited before the P.S.O. The Accidental Death complaint was given by P.W.7, and PW15 was having the knowledge of said complaint and though the suicide note was recovered on 06.10.2003, PW15 himself has not filed an FIR. The complaint (Exh.27) was recorded in S.D.P.O. office Deodar during night hours. The delay of one month in giving the complaint has not been satisfactorily explained by the complainant. The pain and shock because of loss of the daughter and son-in-law would have been there to the complainant and complainant in his cross-examination stated that he was not in fit state of mind to give the complaint and therefore, there was a delay. But other witnesses were brother, sister, mother, of deceased Tina ,and daughter-in-law of the complainant, none of them had come forward to file a complaint. The brother of the deceased Tinaben (P.W.5) could have given the complaint immediately, if the cause which, as alleged was the reason of suicide, and with the suicide note stated to be recovered, there was no reason for the father or the brother of deceased Tinaben to delay the registration of the complaint. 23.2 In the cross-examination of the sister of deceased Tinaben, Page 80 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined PW9-Sharmisthaben, the defence has tried to put a suggestion in the evidence, that the accused had asked her not to visit the house of deceased as the accused were suspecting them of separating Prafulkumar and Tinaben from them. The prosecution has relied on the suicide note (Exh.26), whereby as per the prosecution the deceased Prafulkumar has alleged against Shardaben (A1) that she wanted deceased Prafulkumar to remove himself from the house and was actually removed from the house. Exh.26 does not bear the signature of deceased Prafulkumar. The Bank Manager - PW11, Indukumar Acharya, has not supported Exh.26 in the handwriting of deceased Prafulkumar. The evidence of PW7 - Kishorekumar notes that Shardaben (A1), Kokilaben (A5) and Kailashben (A4) were staying separately from their parents since years and the family consisted of Ishwarlal, Godvariben and daughter Jassiben. PW7 stated that accordingly they were three staying together. His evidence is that from the very beginning deceased Tinaben wanted to stay separate from the family and she has demanded so and often there were quarrel between the husband and wife for that reason, and he has also affirmed that to resolve the dispute, the father of Tinaben was called and accepting the say of the complainant Harilal, father of Prafulkumar had permitted Page 81 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined to stay separately.
23.3 According to PW7 after that decision deceased Prafulkumar and Tinaben were staying separately in the upper floor of the house of Kokilaben (A5). There also because of quarrel between the couple, Kokilaben asked to vacate the house and thereafter they started to stay in the house of Kanubhai. According to the complainant's father, two months prior to the incident both the deceased were staying separately in the house of Kanubhai. The evidence of PW9 - sister of deceased Tinaben clarifies that it was only after her father and husband scolded the accused and insisted them to stay separate, the father of deceased Prafulkumar i.e. Ishwarlal permitted them to stay separately. The allegation in Exh.26 suicide note is that A/1 wanted to remove deceased Prafulkumar from house. A/1 was the Sarpanch of the village at that time.
23.4 If the evidence of complainant is examined minutely, then the facts of the case would suggest that accused No.1-Shardaben was against their leaving the house. She in fact, raised her voice as a Sarpanch stating that she being a Sarpanch, she would see that none would give house to them. This expression is her concern to the insistence of the complainant to make the Page 82 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined daughter and son-in-law separate from the family. Even the expression of the mother - Godvariben with pain is that she had lost one son and now would also live without another son and that she would be satisfied with daughters. This expression has come on record by way of evidence of the witnesses. Such expression would rather show their pain of the only son leaving the house and only brother leaving the parents. 23.5 In the cross-examination of the complainant it has come on record that another son of Godvariben named Mahendra had died a natural death, however, the complainant has denied the same. According to the complainant, Mahendra had died three years ago and he had inter-caste marriage, and according to him he had consumed poison and denied the death because of Jaundice. The mother - Godvariben and the sister have already lost a brother and now it was the concern about the only brother Prafulkumar and the insistent of the family members of deceased Tinaben to separate them from the family. 23.6 The prominent cause for the suicide, as has been shown by the complainant as well as other witnesses, was that four to five days prior to the suicide, Shardaben (A1) and Kokilaben (A5) had slapped son-in-law on the road. The road is in the market Page 83 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined area. None of the independent witnesses from the market had been examined. Shardaben was a known figure in the area, as she was a Sarpanch of the village, there would not be any difficulty of identification of Shardaben, but no witness has been examined for that purpose. The complainant has projected that because of the slap, his daughter and son-in-law, both were under depression and were helpless, however, such fact is not getting disclosed in the suicide note (Exh.26). Had deceased Prafulbhai suffered pain by the alleged slap by Shardaben and Kokilaben, then he would certainly have written so in the suicide note. PW9 - Sharmisthaben, though states of deceased Prafulkumar receiving slap from the sister on the road, but she had not named the sister and she stated that she had not received such information from the deceased brother-in law, while it was Tina who had informed her. PW9 had no information as to what talk took place between brother and sister and why he was slapped. Sharmisthaben was very closed to deceased Tina, since Tinaben had found fit to handover the custody of her son Janak to Sharmisthaben. It could not be believed that Tinaben would not have named, the sister of Prafulkumar, who allegedly slapped him on the road. The incident of slap, as per PW9 had occurred four to five days prior to the suicide. Page 84 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 23.7 The fact that the son-in-law - Prafulkumar and daughter Tinaben were depressed and living in a helpless condition does not get reflected in the suicide note Exh.26, while in the cross examination of the complainant, when they had asked the son- in-law and daughter to stay separately from the parents, all the five had resisted and refused and it was the father of the son-in- law who had given his consent and thereafter, they started leaving separately.
23.8 PW4 is the daughter-in-law of the complainant, the wife of Prakashkumar Thakkar - PW4 Nipaben, according to her, the cause of death was two slaps and the pain of going in a rented house. The fact of receiving slap from the sister is not stated by the deceased Prafulkumar in his alleged suicide note Exh.26. However, Exh.26 refers to the pain of staying separately and the whole allegation of making deceased Prafulkumar go out of the house has been laid down on Shardaben (A1) who is a Sarpanch of the village. The evidence of the complainant and PW9 - sister of Tinaben, rather is the contrary, it was the complainant himself and the husband of Sharmishthaben - PW9 who wanted the son-in-law and the daughter to stay separately from her family.
Page 85 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 23.9 The delay of one month in giving the complaint on 06.11.2003, and not on the very day 06.10.2003, becomes very suspicious if examined from the evidence, which has come in the cross-examination of the complainant.
23.10 The complainant received the phone call on 05.10.2003 at about 10 O'Clock from PW9 - Sharmishthaben that both the deceased had left the son at her house and has not returned back. The complainant was informed that Prafulkumar and Tinaben wanted to visit dispensary. He asked his son - PW12 to make inquiry and at about 11 to 11.30, PW12 informed him of Prafulkumar and Tinaben committing suicide by burning themselves pouring kerosene. The complainant and his youngest son both started on their scooter from Sihori to Deodar. They saw dead body of his daughter and son-in-law being taken to the hospital. He had seen the body of both of them totally burnt. In the hospital at that time, the complainant's brother - Jashwant, his daughter-in-law, all had come there . After the postmortem in the morning in presence of the community people at Deodar, the last rites were conducted. So, the complainant had the information about the suicide at 11 to 11.30. He had seen the dead body at 12 night on 05.10.2003. Page 86 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 23.11 Further clarifying, he stated that the police had inquired from him. Police had come for statement, but he had not given any statement. Police had informed him that they had received a diary and therefore, the police asked him that now since they have received the diary, if at all, he wanted to say the remaining, he could give the statement accordingly. The complainant witness stated that at that time, he told the police that he is not knowing any of the other things. According to the complainant witness, because of the incident, his mind was disturbed and regaining fitness of mind after one month, he had given the police complaint. The evidence of the complainant would further reflect that till that time, he had not even permitted and allowed his son or any family members to give complaint. His cross- examination further reflects that there is a police station at Sihori and even in Thera village. The police had met him in the morning of the incident and had asked him to come the next day. At night of the incident, he had gone to Deodar police station. It was about 12.30 to 1.00 at night and along with him, were 2 and 3 his brothers. He had gone on his own and there, he met a Constable and had informed about the complaint. He waited there for about half an hour. According to the Page 87 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined complainant, police had informed him that they had already received a complaint and that there cannot be two complaints for one matter. On the next day morning, the police talked with him. At that time, the police had informed him about the complaint and the police told him that they were knowing about the fact and if at all he has any new information the police asked him to give. Here, it would be necessary to note that the complainant is referring to Exh.100. The accidental death complaint which was given by PW7 - Kishorekumar. Exh.100 does not refer to any cruelty or harassment or the cause of suicide or any information with regard to sisters slapping the brother. The fact in Exh.100 was clear that the marriage span was of two and a half to three years and out of marriage, there is one year son. The complaint Exh.100 was under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. for the police to inquire and report on suicide. The police certainly have knowledge of the difference between the complaint under Sections 154 and 174 of Cr.P.C. Since Exh.100 narrated that the marriage span was two and a half years, PW16 had sent a message to the higher authority to make investigation through the officer to the rank of Dy.S.P. 23.12 In spite of police informing the complainant about Page 88 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined receiving the suicide note, the complainant sat tight on the alleged note. His evidence in the cross extermination shows that from the date of incident, till the time he gave the complaint, he often had occasion to visit Deodar Police Station. Thereafter, in the cross-examination, the complainant makes the improvement stating that during this period, he and the police had no talks with regard to Exh.26 note book. According to him, he had the information about such note and he clarifies that the Panchas had informed him of receiving the note book and such information was given to him by the Panchas on the third day of the incident, but he states that after receiving such information of the note book, he had never asked from the police to see the same. He states that prior to giving the complaint, he had often gone to the police asking the arrest of the offenders. The conduct of this witness as a father cannot be considered as natural. 23.13 It has come in para-19 of his cross-examination that after the incident, he was immediately fit to give the complaint. The police had shown him the declaration of the information and he affirms that the declaration had no particulars of any harassment to his daughter and there was no particulars of committing suicide because of the accused. He states that after Page 89 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined seeing the report, he had immediately informed the police that there was nothing in the complaint and that he had asked the police to take his complaint at about 12.30 night, but his complaint was not taken by the police. The complainant witness states that the police had informed him that there cannot be two complaints for one incident. At that time, he felt that the police was not taking his complaint and for that purpose, he felt that he should make a complaint against the police. In cross- examination at para-20, he further clarifies that before 6.11.2003, he had not given any application to any of the department, nor had he contacted any superior officer complaining against the police for not registering his complaint. According to him, the police was assuring him and the day on which he gave the complaint, he felt that he should do so. He denied the suggestion that he never felt to give the complaint prior to his complaint. He affirmed that after giving his complaint, he has made applications to various departments and prior to his complaint on 06.11.2003 he has not taken his family members to police station and he further clarified that prior to his complaint, when police has visited his house, he had not allowed police to take statements of any of his family members. He further clarifies that till the time he had given the complaint, Page 90 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined neither his brother nor his son had given any police statement or complaint. It was only after 06.11.2003, after his complaint, that the statement of his wife and other witnesses were recorded. He denied the suggestion that on 20.10.2003, the police had recorded his statement with regard to the incident. 23.14 The whole conduct of the complainant becomes doubtful. A father who complains of harassment meted out to the daughter, did not consider to give a police complaint in spite of knowing the presence of the suicide note. PW15 - Dy.S.P., who was investigating, has also not recorded any complaint of the father in spite of the fact that the father was visiting the police station often after 6.10.2003.
23.15 In the cross-examination, facts has also come on record that the complainant is a person, who has acquaintance with the police station and has knowledge of the proceedings before the police. He affirmed about the complaint, which was filed against him by Vahaji Danaji under Sections 323, 324, 325 and 114 of IPC. His son PW5 - Ashokkumar Harilal Thakkar stated that there was a complaint against his uncle - Jaswantlal under Atrocity Act and PW5 was a witness to the matter. Page 91 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 23.16 PW5, the son of the complainant, had tried to give evidence in the chief-examination of identifying Mark 5/9 and Mark 5/10. Mark 5/10 is identified by Bank Manager (PW10) as a Bank Statement of recovery of loan, which was introduced in evidence by the Bank Manager at Exh.75. While Mark 5/9 is the notebook, which contains the suicide note Exh.26. The son of the complainant PW5 has stated it to be in the handwriting of deceased Prafulbhai, identifying, he stated that he would recognize the handwriting of his brother-in-law since they were studying together. The said fact was not believed by the Trial Court Judge. Even the complainant had tried to bring in some fact of his son-in-law preparing their accounts book, but in the deposition he stated that he cannot produce any such documents, which would show that his son-in-law was writing accounts of their shop.
23.17 PW5, the son of the complainant, supporting his father stating that during that one month period, police had never shown them the writing Exh.26. And even he denies the suggestion that on 07.11.2003, when the police has recorded his statement at that time too, police has not referred to any writing. He denied the suggestion that his sister-Tinaben never wanted to Page 92 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined stay in joint family and she was quarreling, for that purpose, while son-in-law Prafulbhai being single son had always refused to stay separately, and denied the suggestion that even after staying separate, both were quarreling again to enter the joint family. This witness-PW5, the brother, stated that his sister was not in good terms with the sisters-in-law and that they were harassing her. Her sister was informing him about the same. PW5 has merely stated of sisters-in-law harassing his sister, but has not described or given particulars of harassment caused to her. What was the harassment or what type of cruelty was suffered by the sister, PW5 fails to explain. 23.18 PW5 has further stated that after his brother-in-law started staying separately, he was given two slaps, but the deposition does not note the name of the accused, who slapped the brother. The PW5 being the brother also sat quite for about one month and had not given complaint of any harassment, cruelty or instigation for suicide against any of the accused. He had no knowledge about the suicide note (Exh.26) till his father gave the complaint on 06.11.2003. According to PW5, his sister and brother-in-law died by burning themselves because of physical and mental harassment. PW5 the brother, has not given Page 93 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined any details of harassment.
23.19 In the cross-examination of the complainant, photographs of the family from Mark 29/17 to Mark 29/49 were admitted by the complainant and therefore, were put in evidence at Exh.30 to 60. The photographs had the company of all the accused. Another photographs, where all the accused and daughter Tina along with one year child Janak are in the photograph, are stated by the witness that it were taken during the marriage ceremony of son - Shailesh of Shardaben (A1), which shows the presence of daughter Tina and child Janak. All the other photographs also show the family members including the accused and the deceased with the child. The defence had tried to bring the photographs on record with an intent that, had deceased Tinaben any grievance against accused, then she would not have attended the marriage of Shailesh, who is the son of Shardaben (A1). Even in the evidence of the complainant has come on record that at the time of engagement ceremony of the deceased Tina, accused had given two and half Tola gold neckless, one pair of earring, two gold finger wrings, a pair of silver Ankle chain and a Juda sari and cutlery items. There was no case of any dowry demand. However, PW3 - Champaben, the Page 94 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined mother of the deceased had tried to bring on record such evidence stating that the accused were beating her and were questioning her, as to what she had brought in dowry. This allegation is not corroborated by the complainant, nor PW4 or PW5 nor PW8 or even the sister PW9-Sharmisthaben. The evidence of mother Champaben (PW3) further says that Shardaben (A1) was displeased with the fact of their son-in-law and daughter getting separate and Shardaben had stated that she would see, who would give him house to live. According to Champaben-PW3, two or four days prior to the incident, when his son-in-law was on road for his job in the Bank, A/1 and A/5 Shardaben and Kokilaben had slapped her son-in-law and therefore, her son-in-law got depressed, who felt that his dignity got lowered. According to the witness, after they started staying separately, her son-in-law told her that their daughter is suffering harassment and that he now cannot bear more. According to the witness mother, they were harassing the daughter by rebuking her for domestic work as well as for not bringing dowry from his father. This deposition does not find corroboration from the other witnesses' deposition. The dowry demand evidence is not corroborated by the complainant father, nor the brother or the sister or the daughter-in-law of the Page 95 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined complainant. It appears that different stories have been brought during the trial. Even the learned Trial Court Judge has observed about the demeanor of the complainant. The Trial Court Judge in Para-27 on page No.9 of the deposition while asking question, recorded that the complainant witness was continuously adding new things and even at the time of dictation the witness complainant was instructed by the Court to maintain silence. Nothing is brought on record that after the deceased started staying separately any of the accused were visiting deceased in the rented house belonging to Kanubhai Manilal Thakkar.
23.20 In the cross-examination some facts have also been brought on record by accused No.1 contesting election and a family member of the complainant named Vasantiben, contesting against (A1) for the post of Sarpanch. It has come on record that Shardaben (A1) after the divorce was staying with two grown up son, one of them got married, whose photographs have been referred herein before. Vasantiben was wife of Dineshkumar and Dineshkumar's paternal aunt daughter is complainant's real aunt.
23.21 The cross-examination of the complainant would also Page 96 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined show that the incident was of the night of Dashera and the complainant had deposed that he has no information that Godvariben (A3), the mother of Prafulbhai, had offered 'Garbo' on the previous Navratri for Tinaben's first son and according to the evidence on the 9th day of the Navratri, the mother-in-law of A/5 i.e. the Grandmother of Prafulkumar died during Navratri and had affirmed that he had gone to Sidhpur for cremation. 23.22 PW8-Minaben is the another daughter-in-law of the complainant and wife of Ashok Thakkar (PW5), who is only referring in her deposition that Tinaben's sisters-in-law and mother-in-law were taunting her. She stated that Tina used to inform her all the things that were occurring in her house and because of the quarrel they had started staying in the rented house. According to her, even after residing in the rented house the quarrel was not having quietus. She further stated that when she visited Tina at the rented house, the sisters-in-law were not liking it and both the sisters-in-law, Jassiben (A2) and Shardaben (A1) had informed PW8 not to visit Tinaben's house, thereafter, Tinaben talked on phone. According to the witness PW8 Kokilaben, Shardaben had slapped Prafulkumar, the son- in-law and after that incident, he remained sad and was in Page 97 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined mental tension. According, to the witness such slap was given in the Bank, while PW6, who was the Peon in the Bank and PW10- Bank Manager, have not stated of any such incident of sisters Kokilaben and Sardaben slapping Prafulkumar in the bank. There is no evidence of the Bank Manager that deceased Prafulkumar was in depression or was not performing his work competently during the last days prior to suicide. According to the Bank Manager, the work of Prafulkumar was good and he got the information about the death of Prafulkumar on the next day. PW6, the Peon, had been declared hostile. He was knowing Prafulkumar as a cashier in the Bank. He has not stated that the deceased was in depression. In fact, in the cross-examination he has clarified that deceased Prafulkumar has not informed of any harassment from his sisters and mother. PW8 has changed the place of incident. According to her slap was given in the Bank.
24. The defence examined Doctor Chinubhai Amrutlal Shah as DW1 at Exh.104, Doctor Mita Harishbhai as DW2 at Exh.107 and Dr. Vandana Minol Amin as DW3 at Exh.115 and Govindbhai Jagabhai Desai DW4 at Exh.118.
24.1 DW1 - Dr. Shah was examined to prove Exh.105 and Exh.106, which was about child named Radheshyam, who was Page 98 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined only of four days examined on 25.07.2002, who was prescribed vitamins. The Doctor has identified Exh.105 and Exh.106 of his Sonal Children Hospital. On Exh.106, the name in the column was written as baby Radhyshayam, who was brought for treatment and after general check up, he was given the medicines. The witness stated that the child was healthy and was not having pain.
24.2 DW2-Dr. Mita referring to the file stated that Minaben Harilal Thakkar was the name on the case papers and the patient was admitted on 21.07.2002 and discharged on 25.07.2002. The patient was admitted for delivery and the delivery was on 21.07.2002 by cesarean giving birth to a baby boy. The case papers have the medicine bills at Exh.109 to Exh.112, the person who had brought the patient was recorded as Harilal Naranlal Thakkar. The evidence thus shows that it was the father who had brought the daughter in the hospital, and the name on the file was recorded as Minaben of Sihori. The child was born on 21.07.2002. The name does not reflect as Tinaben and further the name also was not noted with the husband's name. The file should have recorded the name as Minaben Prafulkumar Thakkar. It was the case of delivery of Page 99 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined child. Perusal of Exh.110, Exh.113, Exh.114 shows the name of the patient as Minaben Harilal Thakkar. The defence has put up a case that the husband and wife had dispute with regard to the child, since the child was born within seven months of the marriage. The defence has tried to bring on record that the child Janak was premature, who was born on 21.07.2002, when the marriage as per the deposition of the complainant referring to the marriage invitation card (Kankotri), had taken place on 09.12.2001. The evidence does not suggest that the child was premature child. Dr. Chinubhai Shah DW1 had examined the child on the fourth day of birth and he found the child healthy. The question would arise as to why the name of deceased was not recorded as Tina Prafulkumar Thakkar, when she had gone for delivery, while in Modi Hospital, the patient's name was written as Minaben Harilal Thakkar, joining her name with the father.
24.3 Thereafter, DW3-Dr. Vandana Amin was examined at Exh.115 and she had examined deceased as Minaben Prafulkumar Thakkar on 14.04.2003 and as per Dr. Vandana's deposition, she was having 9 months old child, who had come at Miti Nursing Home for insertion of CopperT into the uterus. Dr. Page 100 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined had also written prescription for pain, witness produced evidence at Exh.116 and Exh.117. As per the evidence of Dr. Amin, Minaben and the child, both were healthy. 24.4 DW4 is the witness, who was an A.S.I. at the time of deposition, who stated that on 27.07.1995, he was at Deodar Police Station as P.S.O. at that time, Vajibhai Vanaji Thakor resident of Sardarpura had given a complain, witness produced the complaint at Exh.119 and according to him the complaint was against (1) Harilal Narandas Thakkar (2) Ashok Harilal Thakkar and (3) Champaben Thakkar. The accused in the complaint are the present PW2, PW5 and PW3 i.e. the father, brother and mother of deceased Tinaben. The complaint was under Section 323, 324, 325 and 114 of IPC and 135 of B.P. Act. The allegation against them was of injuring the complainant's son with sickle on the head, with baton on shoulder and other blows on head and other parts of the body. The complainant PW2 in his cross-examination has admitted of such a complaint and has also stated that Shaileshkumar Bhagwandas, the son of his brother-in-law of his brother had given a complaint against his brother Jaswant and Thakkarsinhbhai. He has also admitted that after the present incident they had given a complaint to Page 101 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined remove Shardaben (A1) from the post of Sarpanch. 24.5 The evidence on record clearly proves that the complainant was well aware of the process before the police. The cause shown for delay in filing the complaint of being in shock because of the death of daughter and son-in-law is washed of by the complainant himself by his evidence. In the cross- examination, he admits in Para-16 that on the next day of incident he had talked with the police between 10.00 to 11.00 in the morning and thereafter, everyday he visited the police station and the police has informed him that investigation was in progress. He has admitted that he had never informed the police that he was under shock because of death of his daughter, and had not informed the police that he would not be in a position to give the complaint and would give his complaint after being fit. He has also admitted in the same paragraph that after the incident till the filing of the complaint, he had visited Deodar Police Station many a times and according to him during this period, police had not talked with him about Exh.26 notebook, nor had he asked from the police to see it. Even in Para-19 of the cross-examination, he has stated that after the incident he was fit to give the complaint and that police had shown him the Page 102 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined declaration of death. He also admitted that in the declaration there was no reference of any harassment to his daughter nor any details regarding the cause of death.
24.6 He denied the suggestion that Exh.26- Chit was got up and also denied that the said chit was got up by him and police. He denied the suggestion that the chit does not bear the handwriting of deceased Prafulbhai. The witness also had stated that his son-in-law would some times write accounts of his shop. He was asked to produce bill or any handwriting of his son-in- law, but he stated that he does not have any such writing of bill or any handwriting. The complainant has not remained consistent in his evidence. He is not telling the truth. The cause of suicide does not become clear on record. The reason put forward by the witnesses, of deceased Prafulkumar going in depression because of the slap by the sisters, does not get proved on record. It appears that such a story is created by the prosecution witnesses. Such fact of slap is not reflected in the suicide note. The sisters being the cause, for both the deceased to stay separately from the family is also not proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Rather complainant and the husband of PW9 were responsible to force the accused and Page 103 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined the father of deceased Prafulkumar to make them stay separately. The whole fault is thrown upon the accused. 24.7 The cause of death of Tinaben is not proved. The allegation of harassment to Tinaben is not proved. What is the direct cause of death has not been proved to draw the case for abetment to cause suicide.
24.8 The marriage period is for the period of two and a half year. Provision of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "Evidence Act") would get attracted for presumption to abetment of suicide by a married woman. 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.
24.9 In the case of Hans Raj v. State of Haryana , [(2004) 12 Page 104 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 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 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 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 Page 105 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 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 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 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."
Page 106 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 24.10 To prove the charge of Section 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. 24.11 The second part of Section 498A of IPC 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 these failure or any person related to her to meet such demand.
24.12 Section 498A of IPC does not attract every harassment or every type of cruelty. The prosecution has to establish that the beating and harassment of the deceased were with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfill the illegal demand of dowry.
24.13 In the case of Raj Rani (Smt.) Vs. State (Delhi Administration), [(2000) 10 SCC 662] it was observed by the Page 107 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
4. We have gone through the entire writing contained in the suicide note. It makes a serious castigation against her husband for being an addict to narcotic drugs. Then she made a general allegation against her mother-in-law and in a lesser degree towards the appellant. But unfortunately she did not advert to any concrete instance which can be termed as cruelty as defined in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860. The utterances said to have been made by the appellant towards the deceased were to her chagrin and she had taken them very seriously and in the suicide note she described such utterances as not worthy of reproduction.
5. It is not enough that the deceased felt those words hurting, it must be subjected to judicial scrutiny and the Court must be in a position to hold that those words were sufficiently hurting enough as to amount to "cruelty" falling within the parameters fixed in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860. The area remains grey and vague. Not a single word said to have been spoken by the appellant as against the deceased had been put on record by the deceased in the suicide note in spite of the fact that the said note is a very lengthy letter running into several paragraphs. The tenor and language of the suicide note would reflect that she was not an illiterate lady. As the Court is rendered helpless to judge whether the words which the deceased heard from the appellant would amount to cruelty, it is far from possible for the criminal court to hold that she is guilty of the offence of cruelty as envisaged in the section. It is also to be pointed out that the deceased did not mention a single deed which the appellant would have done against her. All that is said against the appellant was that she spoke something which she took as objectionable.
24.14 Here there are more than sufficient proof that deceased husband and wife were staying separately. There is no iota of evidence by specific and cogent proof that the accused were harassing Tinaben and torturing her continuously even after they shifted to the rented house. The evidence prior to their shifting at the new place are not sufficient enough to constitute Page 108 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined cruelty within the meaning given under section 498 A. The allegation of harassment is general in nature. The witnesses stated that accused as sister-in-law and mother-in-law were harassing Tinaben. What kind of harassment and for what purpose had not been proved. It appears that deceased Tinaben wanted to move away from the family and insisted to stay separate. The evidence proves that the complainant and his son and the husband of PW9 Sharmishtha had forced the accused and the father of deceased Prafulkumar to separate them.
24.15 The grandmother of Prafulkumar died on the earlier day and they committed suicide on the next day. There is no evidence of anything happened at the place of grandmother's house. There is no evidence that there was any willful conduct of the accused which drove Tinaben to commit suicide. There is no proximate reason or incident to drive Tinaben to commit suicide.
They were residing separately since last four months of their death. They had a child. They had separated with a better hope of living independently, without bearing the responsibilities of parents. It was not that they had no other alternative, but to commit suicide. They had carved their own way for life. There is no allegation of harassment or cruelty to Tinaben in the suicide Page 109 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined note.
24.16 The sisters-in-law and parents had no quarrel with the grandchild. They had also gifted grand child on his birth. The 'Garbo' was also offered to goddess in the name of the grandchild Janak.
24.17 Prosecution failed to establish any proximate reason or incident for the suicide of Tinaben.
24.18 For the cause forwarded for suicide of Prafulkumar is slaps from sisters in the market area while going to his job at the bank. The peon of the bank and the Manager of the Bank has not stated of any such incident. Rather as per the peon, deceased Prafulkumar had never complained about his sisters and mother. It is not that Prafulkumar had stopped going to his job at the Bank because of such incident. Further, no person from market area has corroborated these facts though it could have been done, had such incident actually occurred since accused no.1 was a known figure, as was a Sarpanch of the village. Further the evidence to this regard is also not consistent, one of the witness PW8 stated that sisters slapped him in the bank, while witnesses from the bank do not corroborate such Page 110 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined allegation.
24.19 For that matter, even if such allegation of witnesses are believed, then, simple act of reprimand by sisters to younger brother for his behavior of not fulfilling his moral obligations of looking after the parents or expressing anger would not definitely amount to instigation or intentional aid to the commission of suicide. Such act has actually not taken place, had it been so, and that was the cause of suicide and that Prafulkumar had gone in depression and had found it a prestige issue and hurt on his ego, he would have certainly noted so in his suicide note. 24.20 The suicide note shown is only of Prafulkumar, while there is no suicide note of Tinaben. Nor the suicide note bears anything to infer that it was for and behalf of both. There is no allegation by the witnesses, nor any mention in the suicide note, which can be taken as willful action of accused, which compelled the commission of suicide, leaving no option for the deceased.
25. Every Court is required to examine every case on its own facts and circumstances keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances.
26. In Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda (supra), the Hon'ble Page 111 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Supreme Court has held as under:
"17. Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those who abet the act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own life.
18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea-the intention to abet the act is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide. The same position was laid down by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, wherein it was observed that:
"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 the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC 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."
27. In the case of State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, [(1994) 1 SCC 73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: Page 112 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined "15. We are not oblivious that in a criminal trial the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings. In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Although, the court's conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of the offences alleged, it should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidences adduced in the case and the materials placed on record.
Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater [(1950) 2 All ER 458 : 1951 P 35 (CA)] (All ER at p. 459) has observed that the doubt must be of a reasonable man and the standard adopted must be a standard adopted by a reasonable and just man for coming to a conclusion considering the particular subject-matter."
28. In wake of the analysis of the evidence on record and to the principle of law as laid down in the referred judgements, this Court is of an opinion that the learned Trial Court has erred in the appreciation of the evidence, Trial Court has even committed error in the appreciation of law. The circumstances of the case, as has come on record do not prove the guilt of the accused. Order of conviction passed of the accused is not consistent with the evidence which requires appreciation in accordance to the law, as laid down in connection with the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. The Trial Court has committed error by Page 113 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined placing reliance on the assumptions, not permissible in law. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without foundational evidence of cruelty no legal presumption should be drawn, evidence has to effectively show that the accused directly instigated or aided the deceased to die by suicide. The evidence, in the form of suicide note can provide insight into the mental state and intentions of the deceased. Suicide note, similar to a dying declaration, cannot directly be admitted as the sole evidence for the conviction of an accused. The genuineness of the suicide note and its credibility can be verified only after coming to the conclusion that the same had been written by the deceased. To connect the accused with suicide, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to instigate or aid, the commission of suicide as required by Section 306 of the IPC for abetment to commit suicide. This would require demonstrating that the accused either instigated another to commit suicide or aided them in doing so. The Trial Court has committed gross error while assessing the evidence and material on record, and failed to appreciate and analyse the suspicious circumstances which were glaring, creating doubt towards suicide note. Prosecution is required to prove the case beyond Page 114 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2608/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined reasonable doubt. There cannot be presumption of mens rea in case of abetment to suicide unless demonstratively proved and becomes explicitly discernible. The conviction is required to be set aside since the prosecution had failed to prove the case.
29. In view of the above discussions and observations, the present appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the present appellants passed vide judgment dated 26.12.2005, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa in Sessions Case Nos.30 of 2004 and 69 of 2004 is quashed and set aside. The present appellants are acquitted. Bail bonds stand discharged. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj/maulik/Caroline Page 115 of 115 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:21:28 IST 2025