STATE OF GUJARAT vs LIMBACHIYA BHARATKUMAR RAMANLAL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1234 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 349 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
--
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
LIMBACHIYA BHARATKUMAR RAMANLAL & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance in Criminal Appeal No.1234 of 2013
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No.
1
MR SJ NAYAK FOR MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
===========================================================
Appearance in Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2014
MS HELLY PANCHAL for MR. DHRUVIK K PATEL for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent (s) No. 1
MR SJ NAYAK FOR MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 13/10/2026
Page 1 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since identical issues of law and fact arise for consideration
in the present appeals, and the appeals involve common
questions for determination, they are being heard and decided
together by this common judgment.
2. The Criminal Appeal No.1234 of 2013 is filed by the State
of Gujarat and Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2014 is filed by the
complainant-Dashrathlal Dwarkadas Nayi under the
provisions of Section 378 (1)(3) r/w Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the same impugned
judgment and order dated 25.06.2013 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Patan (hereinafter be referred to as
the “Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.92 of 2011, whereby
the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents accused from
the charges under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the India
Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as the “IPC”).
3. The facts giving rise to present appeals are that the
daughter of the complainant, namely Chetnaben (deceased),
had married Accused No. 1 approximately 20 months prior to
the incident. After her marriage, the deceased was residing
with her husband accused No.1 and in-laws in a joint family.
Accused No. 4, Ushaben, was the married sister of accused
No.1 and was residing separately at a different place, whereas
Accused No. 5, Bhavikaben, sister of accused No.1 was
unmarried at the relevant time. During the pendency of the
appeals, Accused No. 5 got married and started residing
separately.
Page 2 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
3.1 The prosecution case further reveals that on 22.08.2011,
the complainant received a telephone call from the father of
accused No.1 informing him that deceased Chetnaben had
fallen from the staircase while drying clothes and sustained a
head injury and that she was being taken to the nearest
hospital at Village Sander. As the injury was serious, the
doctor at the Primary Health Centre, Sander, referred her to a
higher medical centre at Patan. Accordingly, she was taken to
Janta Hospital, Patan. Thereafter, the doctors at Janta
Hospital advised the family members to take her to a better-
equipped hospital. Consequently, she was shifted to Lines
Hospital, Mehsana, where she was admitted as an indoor
patient in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Despite treatment,
she succumbed to her injuries on 25.08.2011. The evidence on
record further indicates that the incident had occurred on
22.08.2011.
3.2 On 23.08.2011, Accused No. 2, the father of Accused No.
1, lodged a Janva Jog report before the jurisdictional police,
stating that his daughter-in-law had gone to the upper floor to
dry clothes and had accidentally fallen from the staircase,
thereby sustaining a serious head injury. He further stated
that she was initially taken to the PHC at Sander and, upon
being referred, was shifted to Janta Hospital, Patan, and
subsequently to Lines Hospital, Mehsana, where she was
admitted to the ICU. The deceased ultimately succumbed to
her injuries during treatment. On the same day, the
statements of Shardaben Dashrathlal Nayak, the mother of
the deceased, and other concerned witnesses were recorded
Page 3 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
in connection with the Janva Jog report. The family members
of the deceased were informed about the incident and reached
Lines Hospital, Mehsana, where their statements were also
recorded.
3.3 After the death of Chetnaben, her body was taken to
Village Sander for cremation. The complainant and his family
members remained with the accused persons throughout the
relevant proceedings, including the cremation ceremony.
Thereafter, the complainant returned home and, on
26.08.2011, lodged a complaint before the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Siddhpur, alleging that the
deceased had died by jumping from the first floor owing to the
harassment and cruelty allegedly meted out to her by the
accused persons. It was further alleged that the accused
persons had demanded dowry and that accused No.1, being
the husband of the deceased, had subjected her to mental and
physical cruelty, with the other accused persons having
abetted the alleged offence. On the basis of the complaint
lodged by Dashrathlal Dwarkadas Nayak, the father of the
deceased, the police commenced further investigation.
3.4 It is pertinent to note that, prior to the registration of the
aforesaid complaint, Accused No.2 had already lodged a Janva
Jog report on 23.08.2011, which was registered as Janva Jog
Entry No. 52 of 2011. An accidental death entry was also
recorded on 23.08.2011 as Entry No. 23 of 2011. The
investigating officer had commenced an inquiry into the
incident and recorded the statements of the concerned
witnesses. However, none of those witnesses had made any
Page 4 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
allegation regarding cruelty, harassment or a demand for
dowry against the accused persons at that stage. Such
allegations were subsequently introduced by the complainant
in his complaint dated 26.08.2011, after a lapse of several
days and following discussions with other persons who
accompanied him to the police station.
3.5 Upon completion of the investigation, the jurisdictional
police filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons before
the competent court at Patan. As the offences alleged were
exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan, after
complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 209
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, committed the case to the
Court of Session, Patan. The case was accordingly registered
as Sessions Case No. 92 of 2011.
3.6 Upon receipt of the case papers, the Trial Court framed a
charge against the accused persons at Exhibit 4 on
14.02.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 306
and 498A read with Section 114 of the IPC. The accused
persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be
tried. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 21
witnesses, including the doctors who had examined and
treated the deceased at the concerned hospitals, and
produced documentary 22 evidence, as referred to in
paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment.
3.7 After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
Page 5 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
acquitted the accused persons from all the charges levelled
against them. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellants State
as well as original complainant have preferred present
Appeals.
4. Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the appellant-
State in Criminal Appeal No.1234 of 2013 and respondent No.
1 in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2014, Ms. Helly Panchal,
learned counsel for Mr. Dhruvik K. Patel, learned counsel for
the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2014 and Mr. S.J.
Nayak, learned counsel for Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned
counsel for the accused persons in both the Appeals.
5. Learned APP has submitted that the order of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on
record.
5.1 The learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
consider the judgments of this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and misapplied the settled legal principles to
the facts of the case. She submitted that the prosecution
examined 21 witnesses and produced 22 documentary
evidences. However, the Trial Court failed to properly
appreciate the oral and documentary evidence, resulting in a
grave error and miscarriage of justice. She submitted that the
deceased committed suicide within seven years of her
marriage at the residence of the accused. She submitted that
the Trial Court failed to properly consider Section 113A of the
Evidence Act and the provisions of Sections 498A, 306 and
Page 6 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
304B of the IPC, as applicable to the facts of the case.
5.2 The learned APP submitted that PW-5, complainant
Dashrathlal Dwarkadas, fully supported the prosecution case
regarding the incident. However, the Trial Court erroneously
disbelieved his evidence and wrongly held that the
prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt. She submitted that the Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate the scene of offence panchnama (Exh.
34), complaint (Exh. 56), map of the scene of offence (Exh.
94), body panchnamas (Exhs. 88 and 89), and other
documentary evidence duly proved through the Investigating
Officer.
5.3 The learned APP submitted that the medical evidence of
PW-1 Dr. Bharatbhai Arjundas Vindhani (Exh. 12), PW-2 Dr.
Akshaybhai Rambhai Prajapati (Exh. 15), PW-3 Dr.
Rakeshbhai Shivrambhai Pravinbhai Patva (Exh. 21), and PW-
12 Dr. Rajeshkumar Raj (Exh. 72), along with the post-mortem
report and other medical documents, supported the
prosecution case. The Trial Court failed to properly appreciate
this material evidence.
5.4 The learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate the evidence of PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW-
11, PW-13, and PW-16 to PW-21, including the evidence of the
Investigating Officers, who supported material aspects of the
prosecution case. She submitted that the Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate the evidence of the Investigating Officer
regarding the preparation of the scene of offence panchnama,
Page 7 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
seizure of relevant articles, and investigation conducted in the
case. She submitted that although PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-14,
and PW-15 turned hostile, they admitted their signatures on
the relevant panchnamas. The Trial Court ought to have
properly assessed their testimony and the remaining evidence
instead of rejecting the prosecution case.
5.5 The learned APP submitted that the Trial Court
erroneously acquitted the accused mainly because certain
relatives of the deceased turned hostile, without properly
considering the complaint, medical evidence, panchnamas,
and testimony of the complainant and Investigating Officer.
She submitted that the Trial Court failed to exercise its
powers under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to clarify
material aspects of the testimony of hostile witnesses and
elicit the truth, as recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in its decision reported in AIR 1997 SC 1023.
5.6 The learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
consider the cumulative effect of the oral and documentary
evidence concerning the alleged physical and mental cruelty
inflicted upon the deceased and the circumstances leading to
her suicide. She submitted that the evidence on record
indicated alleged physical and mental harassment of the
deceased by the accused. The Trial Court failed to properly
appreciate these circumstances and the evidence relating to
the incident.
5.7 The learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
consider the overall facts, circumstances, and evidence
Page 8 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
supporting the charges under Sections 498A, 306, and 114 of
the IPC and erroneously acquitted the accused. She submitted
that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the primary duty
of a criminal court is to ensure that the guilty do not escape
punishment while protecting the innocent. The impugned
acquittal has resulted in miscarriage of justice. She submitted
that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence
regarding the recovery of muddamal articles and its relevance
to the prosecution case.
5.8 The learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
properly consider and apply the ratio of the judgments cited
before it to the facts of the case. She submitted that the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal has resulted in
serious miscarriage of justice and deserves to be quashed and
set aside. She submitted that the prosecution examined the
complainant, medical witnesses, Investigating Officers, and
other witnesses and produced documentary evidence, but the
Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the same.
5.9 The learned APP urges before the Court that the present
appeals may be allowed and the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal may be quashed and set aside.
6. Ms. Helly Panchal, learned counsel representing Mr.
Dhruvik K. Patel, the learned counsel for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2014, submitted that she adopted
the submissions and arguments advanced by the learned APP.
7. On the other hand, Mr. S.J. Nayak, learned counsel for Mr.
Page 9 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
N.K. Majmudar learned counsel for the respondents accused
in both the appeals has supported the judgment and order of
acquittal.
7.1 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial
Court is legal, just, and proper and has been passed after
thorough appreciation of the oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record. The Trial Court has assigned
cogent, convincing, and well-reasoned findings while
acquitting the respondents–accused, and the same does not
warrant any interference by this Court.
7.2 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against
the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence led
by the prosecution suffers from material contradictions,
omissions, and inconsistencies, which create serious doubt
about the veracity of the prosecution case. The prosecution
has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged
offences and has not produced reliable, trustworthy, and
corroborative evidence connecting the respondents with the
commission of the alleged offence.
7.3 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted it is a
settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
presumption of innocence in favour of an accused is further
strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless the findings
recorded by the Trial Court are shown to be perverse, illegal,
or contrary to the evidence on record, the Appellate Court
Page 10 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
should be slow in interfering with an order of acquittal.
7.4 It is submitted that the appellant has failed to point out
any infirmity, illegality, perversity, or misreading of evidence
in the impugned judgment and order. The findings recorded
by the Trial Court are based upon proper appreciation of the
evidence and settled legal principles. The Trial Court has
rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents–
accused, which is a substantive right flowing from the
fundamental principles of criminal law.
7.5 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
submitted that the present appeals are devoid of merits and
deserve to be dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court therefore deserves to be
confirmed.
8. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order, as well
as the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for
both sides, the issues that arises for consideration before this
Court are as under:-
Whether the Trial Court committed any error in passing
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal?
Whether the Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses, has committed any error of
law or fact?
Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
suffers from any illegality or perversity?
9. In view of the above-stated submissions and upon perusal of
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, as well as the
Page 11 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
evidence recorded by the Trial Court, it is appropriate to first
examine short facts of the case. The daughter of the
complainant, Chetnaben (deceased), had married Accused No.
1 approximately 20 months prior to the incident and was
residing with her husband and in-laws in a joint family. The
prosecution case is that on 22.08.2011, the complainant was
informed that the deceased had fallen from the staircase while
drying clothes and sustained a serious head injury. She was
initially taken to the Primary Health Centre, Sander, and
thereafter shifted to Janta Hospital, Patan, and Lines Hospital,
Mehsana, where she succumbed to her injuries on
25.08.2011. On 23.08.2011, Accused No. 2 lodged a Janva Jog
report, stating that the deceased had accidentally fallen from
the staircase. The statements of the deceased's mother and
other witnesses were recorded, but no allegations of cruelty,
harassment or dowry demand were made at that stage.
Subsequently, on 26.08.2011, the complainant, Dashrathlal
Dwarkadas Nayak, lodged a complaint alleging dowry
demands and mental and physical cruelty by the accused
persons, which allegedly led to the deceased's death.
10. Upon appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, it emerges that the deceased was immediately
taken to the PHC at village Sander after the incident. Upon
being referred, she was shifted to Janta Hospital, Patan, and
thereafter to Lines Hospital, Mehsana, where she remained
admitted in the ICU until her death on 26.08.2011, four days
after the incident. During this period, the Janva Jog report and
the accidental death entry had already been registered, and
Page 12 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
the investigating officer had recorded the statements of the
concerned witnesses. Significantly, no allegations of cruelty,
harassment or dowry demand had been made against the
accused persons in those initial statements. It was only
subsequently, after discussions with other family members
and relatives, that the complainant lodged the detailed
complaint alleging cruelty and abetment.
11. The evidence of the complainant, examined as PW-5 at
Exhibit-55, his wife Shardaben, examined as PW-6 at Exhibit
58, Sendhabhai Nathjibhai, examined as PW-11 at Exhibit 69,
Mukeshbhai Manubhai Limbachiya, examined as PW-13 at
Exhibit 75, Prakashbhai Nathjibhai, examined at Exhibit 81,
and the sister of the deceased, examined as PW-17, assumes
significance in this regard. These witnesses were either close
relatives of the deceased or persons closely associated with
the complainant's family. Upon examination of their
depositions, it appears that, except for making general
allegations of harassment and cruelty, they failed to provide
specific details regarding the nature, manner, time or
circumstances in which the deceased was allegedly subjected
to such treatment. Their evidence does not satisfactorily
establish any specific incident of cruelty or harassment or any
demand for dowry attributable to the accused persons.
12. It further emerges from the evidence that the complainant
and the other family members had not expressed any
suspicion against the accused persons in their initial
statements recorded in connection with the Janva Jog inquiry.
Their subsequent versions substantially differed from their
Page 13 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
earlier statements. In particular, after discussions with other
relatives, including PW-11 and other witnesses, the
complainant's side sought to represent the incident, which
had initially been reported as accidental, as a case of suicide
or an intentional act resulting in the death of the deceased. It
was also suggested that the accused persons had caused the
injuries by inflicting blows upon the deceased, resulting in her
becoming unconscious. However, the deceased remained
unconscious from the time of the incident until her death, and,
therefore, her statement could not be recorded by the
investigating officer.
13. Out of the 21 witnesses examined by the prosecution,
approximately 11 were family members or close relatives of
the deceased. Their subsequent depositions contain
allegations of cruelty, harassment and dowry demand that
were conspicuously absent from their initial statements. It
also appears that accused No. 5 was unmarried at the
relevant time and that discussions had taken place regarding
a possible matrimonial betrothal between her and the son of
PW-11, however the proposed betrothal did not materialise
because accused No. 5 declined the relationship, resulting in
resentment on the part of PW-11, who allegedly instigated the
complainant to lodge the complaint. Although this was the
defence version, the material circumstance remains that the
complainant and his wife had not alleged any cruelty or
harassment in their initial statements recorded on
23.08.2011. The evidence further indicates that several family
members were present when the complaint was lodged.
Page 14 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
14. The medical evidence is also material. The Trial Court
discussed the evidence of the doctors, including the doctors
who examined or treated the deceased at Janta Hospital,
Patan, Lines Hospital, Mehsana, and PHC, Sander, as well as
the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination. In
particular, Dr. Rajesh Shivrambhai, who was serving at PHC,
Sander, was the first doctor to examine the deceased. He
recorded the history given by the husband of the deceased,
according to which she had gone to the upper floor to dry
clothes and had accidentally fallen, sustaining a head injury.
15. The evidence of the doctors indicates that the injuries
sustained by the deceased were consistent with a fall from a
height of approximately seven to eight feet, with the head
striking the floor or another hard object. The medical
evidence further indicates that the injury was internal in
nature and that bleeding inside the head and fracture-related
injuries were detected during medical examination and CT
scanning. These injuries were not necessarily apparent upon
external examination. During cross-examination, the doctors
also stated that the injuries could have been caused by a fall
from a height, with the person landing on the head.
16. The panchnama of the scene of the offence, produced at
Exhibit 34, was drawn on 27.08.2011 between 9:00 a.m. and
10:00 a.m. It records no bloodstains or other visible marks
connected with the incident. The panchnama was prepared by
the investigating officer in the absence of the accused persons
and in the presence of Arvindbhai Keshavlal Limbachiya, the
brother of accused No. 2. The description of the place of
Page 15 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
occurrence indicates that the height from which the deceased
allegedly fell was approximately 10 to 12 feet. The scene
panchnama, when considered alongside the medical evidence,
does not independently establish that the injuries were
inflicted by the accused persons.
17. It also appears that the accused persons accompanied the
deceased while she was shifted from one hospital to another
and that the expenses of her medical treatment were borne by
them. This circumstance, by itself, is not conclusive of
innocence; however, it forms part of the overall circumstances
to be considered along with the other evidence on record.
18. Upon considering the depositions of the complainant, his
wife, the parents and other relatives of the deceased,
including her sister, brother-in-law and maternal uncles, it
appears that their subsequent allegations are not supported
by specific, reliable and cogent evidence establishing the
alleged cruelty, harassment or dowry demand. Although the
witnesses sought to suggest that the injuries had been caused
by blows inflicted upon the deceased, the medical evidence
supported the possibility that the injuries had resulted from a
fall from a height. No reliable evidence has been brought on
record to establish that the injuries were deliberately inflicted
by the accused persons.
19. The Trial Court has discussed the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses in detail in paragraphs 12 to 60 of the
impugned judgment and has also considered the relevant
decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. Upon
evaluating the evidence, the Trial Court recorded its
Page 16 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
conclusions in paragraphs 74 and 75 that the prosecution had
failed to establish its case through cogent and convincing
evidence and that the testimony of the interested and partisan
witnesses required careful scrutiny.
20. Upon independently examining the evidence on record, it
appears that the prosecution witnesses have failed to
establish the allegations of cruelty, harassment or dowry
demand through reliable and consistent evidence. The
material discrepancies between their initial statements and
subsequent depositions, coupled with the absence of specific
particulars regarding the alleged acts of cruelty and the
medical evidence supporting the possibility of an accidental
fall, create serious doubt regarding the prosecution case. The
evidence does not satisfactorily establish that the death of the
deceased was suicidal or that the accused persons had
abetted her suicide or subjected her to cruelty within the
meaning of Section 498A of the IPC.
21. It is also significant that accused No. 4, who was the
married sister of accused No. 1 and was residing separately,
was implicated in the allegations despite the absence of
cogent and specific evidence establishing her involvement in
the alleged acts of cruelty or abetment. The prosecution was
required to establish the ingredients of the offences charged
against each respondent through reliable evidence, but the
material on record does not satisfactorily discharge that
burden.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that
the Trial Court has properly appreciated the oral and
Page 17 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
documentary evidence and has assigned cogent reasons for
acquitting the respondents. The findings recorded by the Trial
Court are based on the evidence available on record and do
not warrant interference in the present appeals. Upon
reappreciation of the evidence, this Court finds no compelling
reason to disturb the order of acquittal.
23. At this stage it is appropriate to refer the provisions of
Section 498A, 306 and 107 of the IPC and 113A of the Indian
Evidence Act, which are reproduced hereunder :
Section 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 willful 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.
Section 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.
Section 107- Abetment of a thing.—
Page 18 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
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.
Explanation 1.— A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by
wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a
thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Section 113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
married woman. [Inserted by Act 46 of 1983, Section 7.]-
When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a
woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her
husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a
period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her
husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to
cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by
her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have
the same meaning as in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860).]
24. So far as Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC is concerned, it
is also appropriate to refer the decision of this Court in cases
of State Of Gujarat Versus Ashvinbhai Naginbhai Tandel
reported in 2025 (0) GUJHC 20677, State Of Gujarat Versus
Bhaveshbhai Manilalbhai Patel reported in 2025 (2) GLR 923,
State Of Gujarat Versus Haji Haroon Meman reported in 2026
(0) GUJHC 7002 as well as the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the cases of Ramesh Kumar Versus State Of
Page 19 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
Chhattisgarh reported in 2001 (9) SCC 618 and Ram Pyarey
Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 (6) SCC 820.
Even, so far as the statutory presumption under Sections
113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held that before such a
presumption can be drawn, there must be at least some
cogent material or evidence giving rise to an inference against
the accused. In the absence of even the slightest evidence on
record from which such an inference can reasonably be drawn
against the respondents regarding the commission of the
alleged offences, the statutory presumption cannot be
invoked.
25. There is neither direct nor indirect evidence produced by
the prosecution to establish that any act or conduct on the
part of the respondents accused had driven the deceased to
such an extent that she was left with no alternative but to take
the extreme step of committing suicide. Therefore, under the
circumstances, the trial Court has rightly passed the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal. No infirmity,
illegality, or perversity is found in the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal. Hence, the present appeals are devoid of
merits and deserves to be dismissed.
26. In these circumstances, the trial Court was justified in
concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish the
ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and,
therefore, rightly recorded an order of acquittal.
27. On perusal of the record of the appeals, it transpires that
Page 20 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
the respondents-accused have established their innocence
before the Trial Court and that, after due appreciation of the
oral as well as documentary evidence and other material
placed on record, the Trial Court has rightly passed the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The findings
recorded by the Trial Court are just, proper and in accordance
with the settled principles of law and, therefore, no
interference is warranted by this Court.
28. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider
the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is 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 their
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
29. Further, 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. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal
against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not
ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the
approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest
illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at
Page 21 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are
possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which
would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below.
However, the Appellate Court has a power to review the
evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by
the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a
manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on
record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a
just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find
out whether the accused are connected with the commission
of the crime with which he is charged.
30. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , more particularly
paragraph Nos. 42 and 43 , which was subsequently re-
affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State
of Bihar and another , reported in [ 2022] 3 SCC 471 ,
wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the general
principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph
No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble Apex
Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar
Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 =
(2024) 8 SCC 149, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with
the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to
40. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings
Page 22 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
recorded by the Trial Court.
31. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169 , wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20
and 21 as under:-
“20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the general
principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa and others vs.
State of Karnataka , regarding the power of the appellate Court
while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. The
principles read thus:
“42. …. (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 is 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 23 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High
Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and
weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the
Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of
guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal
against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High
Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses
and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their
testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the
jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the
brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal,
resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing
the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the Trial
Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”
32. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly
appears that there is no credible evidence to connect the
present accused with the alleged crime and the evidence on
record is not so convincing to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the alleged crime. Therefore,
the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on record.
33. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it
clearly transpires that the trial Court has not committed any
error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record
and in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled
against them. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence, it
clearly transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeals
are liable to be dismissed.
34. In view of the above, t h e present appeals are devoid of
merits and deserve to be dismissed. Resultantly, both the
Page 24 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1234/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445092013)
appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail
bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back
to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Page 25 of 25
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:35:54 IST 2026