Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Laljibhai Jivabhai Vara on 3 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 729 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
LALJIBHAI JIVABHAI VARA & ORS.
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MS. KITTY S MEHTA(7025) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5,6
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 03/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2008 on 13-02-2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).
Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined 1.1 During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent Nos 1 and 2
expired and hence the appeal qua the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was abated by an order dated 21-04-2023.
1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused as they stood in the rank and file 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 accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of deceased Aartiben wife of Kamlesh Lalji Vara. The accused No. 3 is the brother-in-law and accused Nos. 4 to 6 are the sisters-in-law of deceased Aartiben. Aartiben was married to Kamlesh Laljibhai Vara about 8 years prior to the incident and who was the son of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the brother of the accused No. 3, the brother-in-
law of the accused No. 4 and the brother of the accused Nos. 5 and 6. Aartiben and her husband were residing in the house of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 situated in Bhoi Vada and were paying a rent of Rs.1000 and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were living in Gulabnagar in Rajpal. The accused would often ask Aartiben to vacate the house and go elsewhere and she had told them that she would vacate the house when she got another house. On 21-10-2007, there was a Baby Shower ceremony in the street Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined and all the accused came for the ceremony and after the ceremony was over, they came to the house of the house of Aartiben and asked her to vacate the house. She was so fed up of the harassment that around 12.30 hours, she consumed pesticides kept for insects. She informed her husband who came and called the neighbor Jogishwariben and she was taken to the hospital with her brother Atulbhai. She was admitted to the GG hospital and she filed a complaint at the City "A" Division Police Station, Jamnagar, which came to be registered under Sections 498-A and 114 of the IPC, which came to be registered as Jamnagar City "A" Division Police Station II-C.R.No.1506 of 2007. The said Aartiben Kamlesh Vara expired during treatment and hence Section 306 of the IPC was added in the FIR.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamnagar and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessios Case No. 13 of 2008.
Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined 2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and appeared
before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 12 was framed and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.13 to Exh.18 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution produced ten oral and twenty six documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. 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 judgment 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 Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined 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 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 Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the Appellant- State and learned advocate Ms. Kitty S Mehta for the respondent Nos.3 to 6. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Aditya Jadeja 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 the direct and indirect evidence in the case. That the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution, which is Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined corroborated by the deposition of the medical officer and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The complainant as well as the prosecution have fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
6. Learned advocate Ms. Kitty S. Mehta 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 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 Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more iTimes New Romann 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.Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined
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. 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. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appre- ciation, 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 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-
Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined
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 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 Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:-
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 Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined 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 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 the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:-
Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more iTimes New Romann 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 Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined 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." [Emphasis supplied]
10. In light of the above settled principles of law in acquittal appeals, the evidence on record of the case is appreciated and the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 - Dr. Krishnakant Pramodrai Pathak at Exhibit 23. The witness was the Medical Officer, who was on duty at G.G. Hospital Jamnagar on 23-10-2007 when at around 01.20 pm, Aartiben was brought for treatment. In the history, she had stated that she had consumed some unknown substance and she had vomited once at her house and in the presence of the Medical Officers, she had vomited three to four times. She was admitted as an indoor patient and at around 3.30 pm, she lost consciousness. During treatment, she expired on the next day at 6 AM. The witness has produced the medical papers of deceased - Aartiben at Exhibit 24. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that, in the history, Aartiben did not give any other details and she had come with a relative to the hospital. The witness has also admitted that there would be many reasons for feeling giddy and Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined vomiting.
10.1 Prosecution Witness No.2 Geetaben Shaileshbhai Dawe examined at Exhibit 26 and Prosecution Witness No.3 Deepeshbhai Harikishan Das examined at Exhibit 28 are the panch-witnesses of the inquest panchnama, which is produced at Exhibit 27. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.
10.2 Prosecution Witness No.4 Bhupathbhai Bhailalbhai Chandra examined at Exhibit 31 is the panchwitness of the panchama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exhibit 32. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. 10.3 Prosecution Witness No.5 Jogishwariben Dharmendrabhai Chudasama examined at Exhibit 43 is the sister of the deceased Aartiben and her neighbour and she has stated that on 23-10-2007 at around 12.30 Hrs., while she was at her house, her brother-in-law Kamlesh came and called her as the deceased had consumed some medicine and she went and found that her sister Aarti was vomiting. The accused were present at their house and on inquiring, Aarti had told her that the accused were harassing her and she was fed up of the harassment and even though she was paying Rs.1000/- rent, they were asking her to vacate the house. The Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined witness has stated that Aarti had come to reside in the house on 20-10- 2007.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she did not see any rent receipt or rent contract regarding the house and she had no conversation with the deceased or her husband regarding the rented house. She does not know who was the owner of the house and she had not seen the documents of ownership of the house. She does not know whether any notice was given to vacate the house to her sister or whether they had filed any litigation before any court for vacating the house. The witness has stated that Kamlesh had told her that his father and mother, brother, sister-in-law and others had quarrelled with his wife and hence she had consumed the medicine. She did not speak to the police at the hospital and she spoke to her sister for about 5 minutes. Her brother Atul was with her from her house but he was not questioned by the police on the day of the incident and no neighbours had come as she had not informed anyone. She did not see the bottle from which the medicine was consumed but Aarti had told her that she had consumed the medicine.
10.4 Prosecution Witness No. 6 Atul Kishorebhai Jethwa examined at Exhibit 45 is the brother of the deceased and he has stated that on the day Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined of the incident he was at his office when his brother-in-law Kamleshbhai phoned him on his mobile No. 99245-82115 and informed him that Aarti had consumed some medicine and he went to Kamleshbhai's house and they took Aarti in a rickshaw to GG Hospital, Jamnagar where she was admitted and was under treatment. His brother-in-law Kamlesh had told him that Aarti had consumed the medicine and he had enquired from her why she had consumed the medicine but she did not tell him anything and thereafter she expired. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he met his sister Jayshreeben in the hospital at around between 03:00 and 04:00 pm and he informed her that Aarti had consumed some medicine.
10.5 Prosecution Witness No.7 - Champaben Kishorebhai Jethwa examined at Exhibit 48 is the mother of the deceased Aartiben and she has stated that on the day of the incident on 23-10-2007 she was at work and around 02:00 pm while she was going home her niece Urmila met her and told her to go to the hospital and both of them went to GG Hospital and saw that her daughter had consumed some medicine and was under
treatment. On inquiring, she was told that she had consumed the medicine because of the harassment of the accused. During the cross-examination the witness has stated that she did not see any rent receipt of the house, in Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined which, her daughter was staying and when she went to the hospital Urmila was with her. The police had come and they inquired from her and took her signature. The witness has denied that the deceased, her husband, her sister and her father had assaulted the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Shubhash market with sticks but has admitted that the accused No. 1 had filed a complaint against all of them in the year 2008. The witness has admitted that all the accused had come for the funeral rites of Aartiben.
10.6 Prosecution Witness No.8 - Dr. Rahul Anilkumar Mehta examined at Exhibit 50 is the Medical officer who has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Aartiben on 24-10-2007 between 10.05 and 11.00 hours along with panel doctor Dr. Mahesh Tagadia. The witness has produced the post-mortem note at Exhibit 13 and has stated that as per column No. 17, there were no evidence of any injuries or fractures seen and, in their opinion, the probable cause of death was due to ingestion of some unknown poison. The viscera were preserved for chemical analysis and after the report of the viscera the final cause of death, the certificate was given and as per their opinion the caused of death was has "ingestion of proputor carbonate poison" and has produced the final cause of death certificate at Exhibit 56.Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that if a person ingests any poison, the effect of the poison would spread in the body and within half an hour if no treatment is received, the consciousness reduces and orientation is lost. For such types of patients, a pipe is inserted through the nose and during that time the patient would not be able to speak.
10.7 Prosecution Witness No.9 Dr. Anilkumar Karsanbhai Patel examined at Exhibit 63 is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at Jamnagar GG hospital on 23-10-2007. The witness has stated that the police had come to record the complaint and, in the complaint, he had made an endorsement that the patient is conscious oriented and able to give statement. In the cross examination, the witness has stated that, in the endorsement of consciousness of the patient, he did not write any detail of the case. The witness has also admitted that he was not present when the complaint was being recorded and after the police had recorded the statement, he had put the endorsement. The witness has admitted that no endorsement, that the patient was checked twice for the consciousness, is made on the endorsement and he did not know what pesticide or what medicine was consumed by the patient.
Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined 10.8 Prosecution Witness No.10 Maganbhai Khodabai Parmar
examined at Exhibit 69 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross examination, the witness has stated that when he reached the hospital the treatment had not started and he did not inquire anything from the deceased. The endorsement, on the complaint, was made by the doctor in the margin before he had asked the patient and after he made the endorsement, he did not meet the doctor and as soon as the complaint was recorded, he left the place. He did not record the statements of any relatives of the complainant at the hospital and had recorded their statements later on. He went to the place of incident at 15:50 Hrs but no bottle, tablets, wrapper of tablets, tin of medicine or any equipment that the medicine was consumed was found at the place of incident and there were no marks that any person had vomited after consuming some poison was found. He did not record the statement of the husband of the accused and when he went to the house, there were two ladies present but they did not inform him as to why the complainant had consumed the pesticide. During investigation, it was not found that there was any Baby Shower ceremony on 21-10-2007 and as per the complaint the dispute was only with regard to the deceased complainant being a tenant and the dispute with the owner. During investigation, it had also come on record that the Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined accused and the complainant were residing separately and none of the neighbors had informed him that the deceased was subjected to any kind of harassment by the accused. During investigation, it also did not come on record, that there was any dispute between the accused and the deceased for vacating the house.
11 On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution the complainant, in the complaint has stated that on 21-10-2007, there was a Baby Shower ceremony in her street and all the accused had come to attend the same and thereafter and they had quarreled with her regarding vacating the house and, hence, on 23-10-2007, that is two days after the quarrel, she had consumed the poison. Admittedly, as per the case of the prosecution, Kamlesh Laljibhai Vara, the husband of the deceased, was at home at the time when the deceased consumed the pesticide and he had called Jogeshwariben, the sister of the deceased, who was also a neighbor and residing nearby and Kamlesh had also telephoned Atul - the brother of the deceased while he was at work and he too had come to the house. As per the case of the prosecution the, incident of consuming poison, has taken place in the presence of Kamlesh and Kamlesh would be the best eye witness as to why the incident has taken place but the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined Kamlesh and he has not been examined as a witness before the learned Trial Court. There are major contradictions in the evidence of Prosecution Witness No.5 Jogishwariben Dharmendrabhai Chudasama, Prosecution Witness No. 6 Atulbhai Kishorebhai Jethwa and Prosecution Witness No. 7 Champaben Kishorebhai Jethwa and Prosecution Witness No. 5 Jogishwariben has stated that her brother Atul had come to her house and he was present and they had gone to the house of Aarti but Prosecution Witness No. 6 Atul Kishorebhai states that he was informed by Kamlesh and he had come to their house. There is no iota of evidence on record that the place, where the deceased was residing belonged to the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and that they were wanting her to vacate the house. The Investigating Officer has stated that no evidence with regard to any dispute for vacating the house was found between the deceased and the accused was found during investigation and none of the neighbours had stated that the accused had ever mentally or physically harassed the deceased. The Medical Officer Prosecution Witness No. 1 Dr. Krishnakant Pramodrai Pathak has stated that when a person has consumed poison, the poison would spread in the body and within half an hour the consciousness and orientation would reduce and at 3.30 p.m. Aarti had become unconscious. Even the complaint which is produced on record at Exhibit 70 has an endorsement by the doctor that the patient is Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined conscious and able to give statement, is signed at 3.00 p.m. and the Medical Officer has also admitted that any patient, who has consumed poison, would have a pipe put through the nose and the patient would not be able to speak during that time. There is no iota of evidence on record that, the accused had done any act on 23.10.2007 or had engaged with the deceased and in any manner, aided and abetted the commission of her suicide. The presence of the accused, on 21.10.2007 at the house of the deceased, is also not proved as the investigating officer has stated that during investigation it was not found that there was any Baby Shower ceremony in the street of the deceased on 21.10.2007. 12 In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (Supra) and Mahendra Awase (supra), the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in 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 Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/729/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined 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 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2008 on 13-02-2012 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 22 of 22 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 31 21:57:32 IST 2025