Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ragubhai Ukabhai Gohel Dalit on 11 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 994 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAGUBHAI UKABHAI GOHEL DALIT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,3,4,5,6,7
MR CHETAN P PANDYA for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4,5,6,7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 11/03/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, Veraval (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2006 on 31.12.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined short).
1.1] The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1] The respondent No. 1 was married to deceased Leelaben about 8 years prior to the incident and the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the brothers-in-law and respondent No. 6 and 7 are the sisters-in-law of deceased Leelaben. The complainant Ramjibhai @ Meramanbhai -
Mangabhai Champada filed a complaint on 01/05/2006, mainly stating that during the marital life of his sister Leela with the accused No. 1, three daughters were born and all the accused used to mentally and physically harass his sister Leela to bring money from her parental home. On 01/05/2006 at around 09:15 p.m., the accused No. 1, telephoned the complainant and told him that his sister had left at around 10.30 a.m. and she could not be found and hence he and his other relatives went to Chitravad and found that his sister was not traceable and hence a missing person report was filed at the Talala Police Station. On 11/04/2006, the Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined dead body of Leela was found from the well of Jamalbhai Munnabhai at Chitravad and hence the complainant filed the complaint on 1/5/2006 at 17:00 hours at the Talala Police Station under Sections 306, 498-A, 323, and 114 of the IPC, which was registered at I-C.R.35 of 2006 before the Talala Police Station.
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and the necessary documents were seized and after completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talala and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Veraval as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No. 59 of 2006.
2.3] The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge at Exh. 1 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.2 to 8, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4] The prosecution produced nine oral evidences and thirty
Page 3 of 19
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025
undefined
documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 62, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya, for the appellant State. Though served the respondents, none has appeared either in person or through an advocate on behalf of the respondent-accused. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated direct and indirect evidence in the case. That the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution, which is corroborated by the deposition of the medical officer and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully prove the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya appearing for the respondents-original accused submits that the judgment and order has been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-State must be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal.
Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court..
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. That the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. That there is no Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
9. As the appeal pertains to a case under Section 306 of the IPC, it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs The State of Madhya Pradhesh in Criminal Appeal No. 221/2025 (@ SLP(Cr) No. 11868/2023) passed on 17th January, 2025 which is as under:
11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
"306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly - instigates any person to do that thing or Secondly - engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined Thirdly - intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:-
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarreling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. ..."
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held as under:-
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record where-from an inference of the appellant accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn." Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
[Emphasis supplied]
10. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 Prithvisinh Chandrasinh Vaghela at Exh. 14 and the witness is the Medical Officer who has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Leelaben. The witness has produced the post-mortem report at Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined Exh:18 and has stated that the body was wet, cold and in a decomposed state with greenish red discoloration seen at places and decomposing fluid was present at the mouth, tongue, lips, eyes etc., which were swollen and the abdomen was distended. There were changes of early decomposition and no external injuries were found on the dead body. The cause of death was kept pending and the sternum was preserved for the diatom test and after the official report was received, as no poison was found, the final cause of death was due to drowning. The witness has produced the final cause of death certificate at Exh:20.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that if a person would accidentally fall in a well, the same type of death would occur.
10.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 Devabhai Hardas Kathad at Exh. 23 and the witness is the panch-witness of the panchnama of the place of offense which is produced at Exh:24. 10.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Ramji @ Meraman Manga Chandapa at Exh. 25 , the witness is the brother of the deceased and he has fully supported the contents of the complaint which is produced at Exh:26.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that his cousin Jayaben is also married at Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined the Chitravad and was residing about 30 feet away from the place where his sister was residing. That the accused No. 1 and his sister were living separately from all the other accused and they were residing in the old house and the in-laws were residing in the new house and there was a distance between both the houses. That no case of ill treatment was ever filed against the accused and his sister was missing on 05/04/2006 and thereafter the complaint was filed on 01/05/2006. That during this time no complaint of ill treatment to his sister was filed and the application that he had given was prepared by an advocate.
10.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 Danabhai Mangabhai Chandapa at Exh. 29 and the witness is the brother of the deceased, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that his sister had no male child and she was sad about this aspect and they would console her very often and tell her to keep her faith in God. That his sister was treated by Dr. Haryani for tuberculosis and a few days prior to the incident, his sister had come for a wedding and had gone happily after the wedding. That after the dead body of his sister was found and after the final rites were concluded, the police had recorded his statement on the seventh day and he had stated that he does not know anything about the death of his sister. That on that Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined date his brother Ramjibhai was also present and the police had also recorded his statement and the rest of the accused are labourers. 10.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Maluben W/o Mangabhai Devsibhai at Exh. 30 and the witness is the mother of the deceased who has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that her niece Jayaben was also married at Chitravad and residing near to her deceased daughter and her daughter and the accused No. 1 were residing in the old Harijan Vas and the other accused were staying in new house in the plot. That her daughter had come to her house sometime prior to the incident and she had stayed for 10-15 days and thereafter the accused No. 1 came and took her back to her matrimonial home. That at that time her son was present and they did not find any objection in sending her daughter to her matrimonial house. That after her daughter left for her matrimonial house and till they got news that she was not found, none of the family members had met her. That her daughter had come for a wedding in the family with her husband and they had happily gone after the wedding.
10.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Hansaben W/o Danabhai at Exh. 32 and the witness is the sister-in-law the deceased.
Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witnesses admitted that her sister-in-law Leela was married eight years prior to the incident and she and the accused were residing separately from other accused. That the police had recorded her statement two to three times and she had not stated before the police that the deceased had come to her parental home and thereafter the accused No. 1 came and coaxed her understand and had taken her back to her matrimonial home.
10.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Mansukhbhai Devsibhai at Exh. 36 and the witness of the Police Officer of the Talala Police Station, who has stated that on 16/04/2006 while he was at the police station, the complainant had given a typed application which is produced at Exh:37.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the application stated that all the accused had physically and mentally harassed the deceased and had thrown her into the well and caused her death and the application had the names and addresses of all the persons and there was sufficient material to take cognizance of the offence. The application was typed and dated 15/04/2006 and no oral facts were stated in his presence and two to three Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined persons had come to give the application and they merely gave the application and went away.
10.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Vikramsinh Vanubhai Jadeja at Exh. 40 and the witness was working as PSI Talala Police Station on 01/05/2006, when the offence at Talala Police Station CR No.I-32 of 2006 under Sections 498-A, 326, 506 and 114 was registered. The witness has stated that Accident Death No. 9 of 2006 were also registered which was inquired into by him, He had recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and had drawn the panchnamas and has narrated the procedure that was undertaken by him during inquiry of Accident Death Case No. 9 of 2006.
During cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had inquired into Accident Death No. 9 of 2006 and prior to filing of the complaint on 01/05/2006, the inquiry was going on but there was no evidence that any cognizable offence had taken place. That he had recorded the statements of the family members of the deceased as also the persons at the place of incident and while the matter was under investigation there was no evidence found that the deceased was subjected to any kind of treatment by the accused there was no evidence found that immediately prior to the incident the deceased had any unfortunate incident with her in-laws and when the complainant came Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined to give the application at Exh:37 in the police station he did not want to give any oral complaint 10.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9 Ashokkumar Pandya at Exh. 45 and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail the procedure that was undertaken by him.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in the papers relating to the missing persons report, there was no evidence that any cognizable offence has taken place and during the investigation at Chitravad village, no statements recorded. The during investigation there was no evidence found that the deceased had any quarrel with the accused prior to the incident at Chitravad village and he had not investigated as to whether the deceased had taken any treatment from any government or private hospital at Veraval. That the Accidental Death was registered and he had received the statements of the Missing Person Report No. 2 of 2006 and Accident Death No.9/ 2006 and the papers of I-C.R.No. 32 of 2006. The witness has categorically stated that before the FIR was registered there was no evidence that any cognizable offence has taken place.
11. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the facts that emerge on record are that the deceased was Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined married to the accused No. 1 for more than eight years and they both had three daughters out of the marital life. That the deceased and the accused No. 1 were deciding separately from all the other accused and on 05/04/2006, deceased Leela was missing from 10:30 a.m., for which, a Missing Person's Report No. 2 of 2006 was filed at Talala Police Station. That thereafter, the on 11/04/2006, the dead body from the well of Jamalbhai at Chitravad village and Accidentally Death No. 9 of 2006 was registered. The Investigating Officer was conducting an inquiry in two matters and had recorded the statements of all the connected witnesses including the family members of the deceased and no evidence of any cognaizable offence was found. There was no evidence that the deceased was subjected to any mental or physical harassment prior to the incident and thereafter the complainant filed the complaint on 01/05/2006. There is no explanation regarding the delay in filing the complaint and prior to filing of the complaint, the complainant gave typed application on 16/04/2006 stating that the accused had subjected his sister to physical and mental harassment and had committed her murder and thrown her in the well. The post-morterm note produced on 12/04/2006 does not mention any marks of injuries on the dead body of the deceased and as per the opinoion of the Prosecution Witness No.1 if a person accidentally falls in a well, the same type of death would occur. There is no iota of Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined evidence that the deceased was subjected to any kind of mental or physical harassment by the accused and it is proved that the deceased, Leela ben, her husband, the accused No.1 were residing separately from all the other accused. There is no iota of evidence that immediately prior to the incident, all the accused had met the deceased or that they had done any act which would cause the deceased to commit suicide or that they had intentionally aided and abetted and instigated the deceased to commit suicide and in the entire evidence, the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC are not made out. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the oral as well as documentary evidences in detail and has concluded that the contradictory evidence of the complainant and the witnesses cannot be relied upon and it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubts. Moreover, the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused is fairly possible and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
12. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Mahendra Awase (supra), the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/994/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2025 undefined considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against him. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of extending benefit of doubt and acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
13. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, Veraval in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2006 on 31.12.2007, is hereby confirmed.
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 23:12:36 IST 2025