STATE OF GUJARAT vs GOVINDBHAI MANABHAI MAHERIYA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1633 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO: Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GOVINDBHAI MANABHAI MAHERIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,6
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4,5
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
4,5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 04/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378 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. 3,
Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as
“the learned Trial Court ” ) in Sessions Case No. 68/2005 on
15.06.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections
Page 1 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
306, 498(A) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
1.1 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent
nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 have expired and hence, the appeal qua
the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 was abated by an order of
this Court dated 17.04.2023.
1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the
accused” in the rank and file 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 accused Nos. 1 and 2 were the father-in-law and
mother-in-law, respectively; accused No. 3 was the uncle-in-
law; accused No. 4 was the elder brother-in-law; accused
No. 5 was the younger brother-in-law; and accused No. 6
was the husband of Ranjita, daughter of the complainant,
Manubhai Shamlabhai Parmar. It is the case of the
prosecution that the marriage of Ranjita with accused No. 6
was solemnized on 22.08.2004. According to the
prosecution, after the marriage, all the accused subjected
Ranjita to harassment on the ground that they desired
Page 2 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
accused No. 6 to marry another woman. They would
frequently taunt her by referring to the fact that she had
eloped and would tell her that she ought not to reside with
accused No. 6. It is further alleged that on 06.11.2004, the
accused brought Ranjita to her parental home and left her
there. Thereafter, they did not take her back to the
matrimonial home. It is the further case of the prosecution
that, being unable to withstand the alleged harassment and
the circumstances prevailing in her matrimonial life, Ranjita
became distressed and, on 12.01.2005, at some time prior
to 13:15 hours, committed suicide by hanging herself at her
parental residence situated at 16-A, Baldev Nagar Society,
Vibhag-1, Jivraj Park, Ahmedabad. In connection with the
aforesaid incident, the complainant, Manubhai Shamlabhai
Parmar, lodged a complaint on 12.01.2005 before Vejalpur
Police Station, Ahmedabad City, which came to be
registered as I-C.R. No. 12 of 2005 for the offences
punishable under Sections 306, 498-A and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
Page 3 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet came to be filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad (Rural) as per the provisions of Section 209 of
Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as
Sessions Case No. 68/2005.
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. A charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at
Exhs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively, wherein, the accused
denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of
the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and produced
18 documentary evidences on record in support of their
Page 4 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
case 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. 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
judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused
from the charges levelled 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
judgment 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 the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been
elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondents
and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted,
Page 5 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the 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 Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakore for the
respondent nos. 4 and 5. 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 Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this Court
through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of
the case and submitted that the complainant has fully
supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned
judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged
this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the
respondent guilty for the offences.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakore for the
respondent nos. 4 and 5 has submitted that the appeal
Page 6 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
having abated against original accused nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 by
order dated 07.04.2023, the only question is whether there
is legally admissible evidence of a specific act of cruelty or
abetment by accused no. 4 or accused no. 5 so strong as to
render the Trial Court's view impossible. Learned advocate
submits that the sole allegation against accused no. 4 is
that he taunted the deceased as a runaway when she visited
Kheda from time to time, is vague, without date, occasion or
witness and is contradicted by the prosecution's own
chronology, as the deceased stayed at Kheda only for about
eight days after the marriage and never again thereafter.
None of PW1 to PW4 deposed that the deceased told them of
such words. As to accused no. 5, the only act attributed is
that on 06.11.2004, he escorted her to her parental home
and conveyed his brother's intention to marry elsewhere.
This, even at its highest, is the conveying of a message and
not wailful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide under
Explanation (a) to Section 498A IPC. The further version
that accused no. 5 said "this girl is not proper and has run
away" is an improvement absent from the complaint, as
Page 7 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
admitted by the Investigating Officer, and PW3 admits that
accused no. 5 never spoke to her. PW2's admission that the
accused resided at Kheda and Nadiad, and not at
Junagadh, falsifies the allegation of harassment there.
Learned advocate further submits that the meeting of
09.01.2005 was a negotiation between elders convened by
the complainant's side, that the deceased was not present,
that the independent witness PW-7 deposed to no talk of
harassment, dowry or taunts, that no words are attributed
to accused no. 4 individually, and that a refusal to resume
cohabitation or a proposal for customary divorce, even if
hurtful, is not instigation under Section 107 IPC. Section
114 IPC is inapplicable as both were at Kheda and Nadiad
on 12.01.2005, while the deceased died in Ahmedabad.
Since cruelty was not proved against them, no presumption
under Section 113A of the Evidence Act arises, and the note
at Exh. 53, even if accepted, attribute her act solely to
defamation given by Hasmukhbhai and name neither
accused no. 4 nor accused no. 5. Learned advocate further
submits that the Trial Court's findings rest on the
Page 8 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
admissions of the prosecution's own witnesses and
represent, at the least, a reasonable view warranting no
interference and hence, the appeal may 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 regarding the scope of
interference in acquittal appeals in the case of State of
Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram reported in (2023) 18 SCC
87 , wherein, the Apex Court in para 8 has observed as
under:
8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very
limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is
impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the
finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not
permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the
appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable.
The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not
possible at all.
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
Page 9 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
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 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
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal
reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 has held in paras 9 to 13 as
under:
9. At the outset, we intend to address the issue regarding the
applicability of Section 306 IPC in the facts of the present case.
Section 306 deals with abetment of suicide and Section 107
deals with abetment of a thing. They read as follows:
“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.”
"107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a
thing, who -
First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Page 10 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
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 places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section 107
reads as under:
"Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
10. The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long
settled was recently reiterated by this Court in the case of
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129 as follows in
paras 12 and 13:
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing.
In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental
process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing.
More active role which can be described as instigating or
aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be
said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section
306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed
that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the
facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence
adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the
cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end
the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that
a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary
petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite
common to the society to which the victim belonged and such
petulance, discord and differences were not expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society
to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of
abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
11. Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. this Court
gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as
Page 11 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
follows in para 6:
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence
of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in
IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he
instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one
or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete
abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to
provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do
any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or
intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section
107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed
in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the
punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be
punished with the punishment provided for the original
offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence
abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a
person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with
the proved offence."
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 their 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.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of
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 12 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
10. In light of the above settled principle of law, the
evidence of the prosecution is dissected and PW1 –
Manubhai Shamlabhai Parmar examined at Exh. 13 is the
original complainant and father of deceased Ranjita. The
witness has reiterated the facts stated by him in the
complaint, which has been produced at Exh. 57. He has
deposed that the marriage of his daughter Ranjita with
accused No. 6 was her second marriage and after the
marriage, the accused subjected her to mental and physical
harassment. According to the witness, his daughter had
disclosed the harassment meted out to her by the accused
to her elder sister, Deepti, who, in turn, informed him that
the accused were ill-treating and torturing Ranjita. The
witness has further deposed that on 06.11.2004, accused
No. 5 brought Ranjita to her parental home and informed
the family members that she would be taken back to the
matrimonial home after Diwali. However, the accused did
not thereafter come to take her back. The witness has
further stated that on 09.01.2005, he, along with his
relatives, met the accused at Jashoda Chowkdi and
requested them to take Ranjita back to her matrimonial
Page 13 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
home. However, the accused refused to do so, stating that
she had eloped and that they intended to get accused No. 6
married elsewhere. According to the witness, when he
conveyed this fact to his daughter, she became extremely
upset and distressed. The witness has further deposed that
on 12.01.2005, while his son Vipul had gone to the barber's
shop, his elder daughter had left for work and he himself
had gone out of the house, Ranjita committed suicide by
hanging herself in the house. His son Vipul returned home
at approximately 11:00 a.m., found the door locked and,
upon entering the house, discovered Ranjita hanging in one
of the rooms. The complainant has further stated that he
handed over a note allegedly written by his daughter to the
police. In his cross-examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness admitted that, at the time of
lodging the complaint, he had seen the note and that he
had also informed the police in his further statement that
he had found the said note. The witness further admitted
that remarriage after divorce was permissible in their
community and the community booklet is produced in the
cross examination at Exh. 14. He also admitted that, prior
Page 14 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
to her marriage with accused No. 6, Ranjita had been
married to one Ambalal at Bakrol and that she had
submitted an application before the State Women
Protection Committee, which has been produced at Exh.
15. The witness further admitted that accused Nos. 1 and 2
were residing at Kheda and Nadiad, whereas, after her
marriage, his daughter was residing at Junagadh with
accused No. 6, who was serving as a bank officer and was
posted at Junagadh. He also admitted that Ranjita had
initially been brought back to her parental home on
29.08.2004 and 09.09.2004, and that his other daughter
had taken her back to the matrimonial home. He further
admitted that after 06.11.2004, Ranjita had never returned
to her matrimonial home. The witness also admitted that
his daughter would not speak to him and that he was
unaware as to when the note was written and who had
informed him about the same.
10.1 PW2 – Vipulbhai Manubhai Parmar examined at Exh.
18 is the brother of the deceased. The witness has
supported the case of the prosecution and has deposed in
support of the circumstances surrounding the death of his
Page 15 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
sister. In his cross-examination, however, the witness
admitted that his sister never discussed any aspect of her
matrimonial life with him. He further admitted that his
elder sister, Deepti, had gone to Junagadh and stayed there
for approximately four days during September, but at that
time she did not have any complaint regarding the conduct
of the accused or any harassment being meted out to
Ranjita. The witness also stated that his sister had been
residing at his house from 06.11.2004 till 12.01.2005. He
further admitted that on the day of the incident, he and
Ranjita had tea together, that she had prepared the food
and that he had not seen her writing any note on that day.
10.2 PW3 – Diptiben Manubhai Parmar examined at Exh.
20 is the elder sister of the deceased. She has supported
the case of the prosecution and deposed regarding the
circumstances relating to the matrimonial life of her sister.
In her cross-examination, the witness stated that after her
marriage, Ranjita had initially resided with the accused for
approximately ten days and that during that period she had
not made any complaint regarding any harassment or ill-
Page 16 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
treatment. She further stated that thereafter, in September
2004, she had gone to Junagadh and had accompanied her
sister there. Even during her stay at Junagadh, Ranjita did
not have any complaint against her in-laws. The witness
further admitted that, upon returning to Ahmedabad, she
had informed her father about the same.
10.3 PW4 – Chimanlal Trikamlal Sonara examined at Exh.
22 is the uncle of the deceased. He has deposed that he
was informed about the incident by his nephew Vipul. In
his cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness stated that he had approximately 33
years of experience in the police department and had
investigated several cases of a similar nature. He further
deposed that after seeing the dead body, he and his nephew
Vipul went directly to the Police Station, where the police
recorded the statements of the witnesses.
10.4 PW5 – Gauriben Dineshbhai Maheriya examined at
Exh. 26 and PW6 – Nirajbhai Ashokbhai Rathod examined
at Exh. 29 are the panch witnesses to the inquest
panchnama, which has been produced at Exh. 27. Both the
Page 17 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
witnesses have supported the prosecution case with regard
to the panchnama proceedings.
10.5 PW7 – Bhagwandas Kanjibhai examined at Exh. 40 is
a member of the community to which the complainant
belongs. The witness has deposed that on 09.01.2005, the
complainant, his family members and certain other persons
had assembled at his residence to discuss the issue of
sending the daughter of the complainant back to her
matrimonial home. According to the witness, during the
discussion, Chimanbhai, the brother-in-law of the
complainant, became agitated and stated that he would
slap the accused. Consequently, the discussion could not
be concluded and it was decided that the parties would
meet again. The witness further stated that he was
unaware as to whom the deceased had been married
previously, but knew that her second marriage was with
accused No. 6. He was also unaware as to how she was
treated at her matrimonial home. He, however, knew that
she had subsequently committed suicide by hanging. In his
cross-examination, the witness admitted that he was
Page 18 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
personally present at the meeting and had participated in
the discussion. He stated that during the meeting, it was
mentioned that the deceased was unwilling to reside at
Junagadh and that it was discussed that accused No. 6
would come to Ahmedabad and reside there. At that time,
Chimanbhai became agitated and threatened to slap
accused No. 6. The witness further admitted that, as a
member of the community, he had knowledge that there
was no dispute between the deceased and accused No. 6.
Significantly, he admitted that during the said discussion,
there was no allegation of any harassment by accused No. 6
towards the deceased, nor was there any discussion
regarding demand for dowry. He further admitted that there
was no allegation that accused No. 6 had mentally or
physically assaulted the deceased or subjected her to
taunts.
10.6 PW8 – Khetariya Vinubhai Hirabhai examined at Exh.
41 is the panch witness in whose presence the police had
seized a Brown Diary produced by Vipulbhai – the brother
of the deceased.
Page 19 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
10.7 PW9 – Dr. Tapanbhai Jitendrabhai Mehta examined at
Exh. 44 is the Medical Officer who was on duty at
Municipal Medical College, V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad. The
witness has deposed that on 11.01.2005, at approximately
4:40 p.m., the dead body of Ranjita, wife of Hasmukhbhai
Meharya, was brought to the hospital for post-mortem
examination. He further stated that, along with his
colleagues, Dr. Rohit C. Jariwala and Dr. Kalpesh S.
Kothari, he conducted the post-mortem examination on the
same day between 4:45 p.m. and 6:10 p.m. The witness
produced the post-mortem note at Exh. 45. As recorded in
Column No. 17, the following injuries were noticed on the
body of the deceased. According to the medical opinion, the
cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging.
10.8 PW10 – Rajeshkumar Bachubhai Solanki examined at
Exh. 46 is the panch witness to the panchnama produced
at Exh. 47, whereby the dupatta allegedly used by the
deceased for hanging herself and the pieces of the note were
seized by the police during the course of investigation. In
his cross-examination, the witness admitted that Vipul, the
Page 20 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
brother of the deceased, was his friend and that Vipul was
present at the time of preparation of the panchnama. He
further stated that the pieces of the note were brought by
Vipul and handed over to the police. The witness also
admitted that he had not seen the dead body in a hanging
condition.
10.9 PW11 – Manohar Mohandas Tahiliyani examined at
Exh. 48 is the handwriting expert. The witness has
produced his expert opinion at Exh. 51. As per his opinion,
the disputed writings and the admitted natural writings
were written by one and the same person. Thus, according
to the expert opinion, the handwriting appearing in the
disputed document and the specimen writings were of the
same author.
10.10 PW12 – Rameshchandra Madhavlal Patel
examined at Exh. 56 is the Investigating Officer, who has
narrated the various steps undertaken by him during the
course of investigation. In his cross-examination by the
learned advocate for the accused, the witness admitted that
on 12.01.2005, when Vipul Manubhai approached him, he
Page 21 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
had not lodged any complaint nor had he stated that his
sister had committed suicide on account of harassment by
the accused. The witness further admitted that he had
visited the place of occurrence, inspected the room where
the dead body was found hanging and drawn the necessary
panchnama. However, no note was found in the said room
during the inspection. He further admitted that the persons
present at the place of occurrence had informed the police
that it was a case of accidental death. The witness also
admitted that the statements of the neighbours recorded
during the investigation did not contain any allegation
regarding ill-treatment or harassment by the accused.
11. Upon an overall reappreciation of the oral as well as
documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, this
Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the evidence of
the complainant and his family members is accepted at its
face value, the same does not establish any specific act of
instigation, intentional aid or abetment on the part of any
Page 22 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
of the accused which could have driven the deceased to
commit suicide. There is no cogent and convincing evidence
on record to demonstrate that the accused had, by their
conduct or any overt act, intentionally instigated, provoked
or facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased.
The allegations regarding mental and physical harassment
are general in nature and are not supported by any
independent evidence. On the contrary, the evidence of PW2
and PW3, when considered in the light of their cross-
examination, does not establish that the deceased had
made any contemporaneous complaint regarding
harassment at the hands of the accused. More particularly,
PW7, who was present at the community meeting convened
to resolve the matrimonial dispute, has categorically
admitted that no allegation of harassment, physical or
mental cruelty, or demand for dowry was raised during the
said discussion. The evidence of the Investigating Officer
further reveals that no note was found in the room during
the initial inspection of the place of occurrence and that
even the statements of the neighbours did not disclose any
Page 23 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
allegation of ill-treatment by the accused. Though the
handwriting expert has opined that the disputed writings
and the admitted writings were of the same person, such
opinion, by itself, cannot establish the commission of the
offence of abetment of suicide unless the contents thereof,
read with the other evidence on record, establish the
necessary ingredients of the offence. Mere matrimonial
discord, strained relations or even allegations of
harassment, without proof of the requisite intention and a
positive act amounting to instigation or abetment, would
not be sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution is required to
establish a live and proximate link between the conduct
attributable to the accused and the commission of suicide
by the deceased, which is conspicuously absent in the
present case. The learned Trial Court has considered the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper
perspective, taken note of the material admissions and
contradictions emerging from their cross-examination and
has rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to
Page 24 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on a
proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and
cannot be said to be perverse, unreasonable or contrary to
the settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence. In
an appeal against acquittal, unless the findings recorded by
the Trial Court are manifestly erroneous or suffer from
perversity, interference by the appellate Court would not be
warranted merely because another view may also be
possible. In the facts and circumstances of the present
case, this Court finds no cogent reason to take a view
different from the one adopted by the learned Trial Court.
Consequently, the judgment and order of acquittal passed
by the learned Trial Court deserve to be confirmed, and the
present appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be
dismissed.
12. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of
Ksitoora Ram (supra) and Amalendu Pal (supra), the
learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in
proper perspective and there does not appear to be any
Page 25 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
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
acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them.
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 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. 3, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in
Sessions Case No. 68/2005 on 15.06.2010, is hereby
confirmed.
Page 26 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1633/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240472342010)
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
Page 27 of 27
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 04:01:19 IST 2026