STATE OF GUJARAT vs SHAILESH MALDEVBHAI VADHIYA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/695/2014 (GJHC240457862014) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 695 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHAILESH MALDEVBHAI VADHIYA
==========================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NAYAN D PAREKH(5010) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 31/08/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
nd
judgment and order dated 11.03.2014 passed by the learned 2
Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval at Junagadh (hereinafter be
referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.10 of 2010,
whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original accused
(respondent herein) from the offences punishable under Sections 306,
498(A) etc of the Indian Penal Code.
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:44 IST 2026
R/CR.A/695/2014 (GJHC240457862014) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that prior to five years
of the incident, Ramilaben (deceased) married to accused and
thereafter the marriage life of husband and wife was going on
smoothly. That out of the said wedlock, Ramilaben delivered two
children i.e. daughter Jaanu and son Badal and they were residing
separately. It is alleged that during the short span of marriage, the
accused subjected to mental and physical cruelty to Ramilaben, due
to which, she committed suicide by hanging herself. Hence, a
complaint was lodged by the complainant before Malia Hatina Police
Station for the aforesaid offences. The police prepared panchnama of
the scene of offence and after preparing the arrest panchnama, the
accused came to be arrested. On completion of investigation, charge
sheet was submitted into the Court of learned J.M.F.C.
2.1 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial
Court for the aforesaid offences against the accused. On being
explained it to them, the accused have denied having committed any
offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for
trial and hence, the case was tried by the trial Court.
3. I t appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the witnesses and in addition to this, the
prosecution has also produced the documentary evidence.
4 After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been
recorded wherein he denied of having committed any offence and has
stated that he is innocent.
5. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:44 IST 2026
R/CR.A/695/2014 (GJHC240457862014) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
7. Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.Nayan Parekh, learned counsel
for the respondents – accused at length.
8. Ms.Jhaveri, l earned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which
are narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that the
prosecution has examined witnesses and produced documentary
evidence, despite this fact, the trial Court has not considered the
same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while
referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, has
assailed the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the
trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence connecting
the accused to the alleged offence in its proper perspective and even
the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against
the accused.
8.1 While referring to the evidence of the witnesses and the
material collected against the accused, Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has established
the case against the accused by examining the witnesses, who have
supported the case of the prosecution, however, the trial Court has
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:44 IST 2026
R/CR.A/695/2014 (GJHC240457862014) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
discarded and disbelieved the evidence of these witnesses. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the witnesses have
fully supported the case of the prosecution, however, the trial Court
has not appreciated the same and passed the judgment and order of
acquittal which is illegal and unjust.
8.2 Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted
that it is settled legal position that the evidence of a single witness is
sufficient for conviction if the same is reliable and trustworthy and in
the present case, though the evidence of all the witnesses are reliable
and trustworthy, without any cogent reason, the trial Court has
disbelieved and discarded the evidence of the witnesses.
8.3 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that
the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the evidence on
record, based on erroneous appreciation of material evidence, and
has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and the findings recorded by
the learned Trial Court are perverse and unsustainable in law, thereby
calling for interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted
that the learned Trial Court has materially erred in holding that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and
the findings recorded by the trial Court were therefore perverse,
illegal, and contrary to the evidence on record.
8.4 According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court
ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed
necessary sentence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed
to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal.
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:44 IST 2026
R/CR.A/695/2014 (GJHC240457862014) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
9. Per contra, Mr.Parekh, learned counsel for the respondent –
accused has supported the impugned judgment and order and has
submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and
fact in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him.
He has submitted that the ingredients of the offence alleged against
the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused as the complainant
has failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused. He has
also submitted that there is no iota of evidence to connect the
accused with the alleged crime in question. He has submitted that
the evidence led by the prosecution suffers from material
contradictions, omissions, and inconsistencies, which create serious
doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and the prosecution
has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences
and has not produced reliable, trustworthy, and corroborative
evidence connecting the respondent with the commission of the
alleged offence. Mr.Parekh, learned counsel has submitted that 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. It is submitted that unless the findings recorded by the
trial Court are shown to be perverse, illegal, or contrary to the
evidence on record, the Appellate Court should be slow in interfering
with an order of acquittal. 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 and the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court are based upon proper
appreciation of the evidence and settled legal principles. Learned
counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appeal being
meritless deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:44 IST 2026
R/CR.A/695/2014 (GJHC240457862014) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
order of acquittal deserves to be confirmed.
10. Considering the aforesaid submissions and aspects, this Court is
first required to examine the fact of the case. That the deceased
Ramilaben got married to the accused before about five years and out
of the said wedlock, she delivered two children i.e. daughter Jaanu
and son Badal and the deceased, her husband and children were
residing separately from her in-laws at Village: Ladudi, Taluka: Malia
Hatina, District: Junagadh. That on 26.08.2009, when the deceased
was alone at her home, she committed suicide by hanging herself, of
which, the accused immediately informed the complainant and other
relatives for the incident and then they took the deceased at
Dr.Gosai’s Hospital situated at Talala. Though the condition of the
deceased was critical, it was advised to take the deceased at Veraval
Government Hospital where the complainant and the son of his
brother reached to the hospital of Dr.Ramavat at that time deceased
was unconscious and on the next day i.e. on 27.08.2009 at about
11.00 o’clock, deceased died in unconscious condition. Thereafter, the
deceased was shifted to G. G. Hospital at Jamnagar where panel
doctor performed the postmortem of the deceased and during the
postmortem, the doctor has not found any external or internal injury
except the ligature mark on the neck. However, the complainant i.e.
father of the deceased lodged the FIR against the accused wherein it
was alleged that since the accused was subjected to cause mental
and physical cruelty to the deceased, earlier the deceased came to
his house but after intervention of the family members and other
elders of the family, she returned to her matrimonial home. That
because of the ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased
by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging herself and hence,
the complaint came to be lodged by the complainant and on the basis
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:44 IST 2026
R/CR.A/695/2014 (GJHC240457862014) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
of the complaint, the investigation was carried out by the
jurisdictional police.
11. The prosecution has examined four doctors i.e. P.W. 3 Dr.Ashish
Bharatbhai Ramavat at Exhibit 20, P.W.4 Dr. Kishorkumar
Raghuvirdas Hariyani at Exhibit 22, P.W. 5 Dr.Sandeep Amrutgiri
Gosai at Exhibit 24 and P.W.6 Dr.Amit Panabhai Parmar at Exhibit 26.
Out of these four doctors, P.W.5 first treated the deceased and
thereafter P.W.3 and P.W.4 since the deceased was brought in
unconscious condition, there was no occasion for the Investigating
Officer either to record the FIR or the dying declaration of the
deceased and after the death, the dead body was taken to the G. G.
Hospital Jamnagar for performing the postmortem where P.W.6
performed the postmortem of the deceased. From their evidence, the
fact reveals that there was no external or internal injury found on the
body of the deceased except for the ligature mark.
12. Looking to the evidence of P.W.7 Raja Nathu Bamaniya at
Exhibit 42, P.W.8 Dharmishthaben Rajabhai Bamaniya at Exhibit 53
and P.W.9 Hiteshbhai Rajabhai Bamaniya at Exhibit 55 being father,
sister and brother of the deceased, it appears that there was no
specific version with regard to ill-treatment or harassment caused to
the deceased at the instance of the accused. There is exaggeration
and omission in the version of the complainant and even the fact
stated by the complainant in the complaint was stated before the
Court for the first time. On the contrary, prior thereto, the accidental
death was registered being Entry No.17/2009 on 27.08.2009 by one
Laxmanbhai Nathabhai, which was produced on record at Exhibit 69
and at that time, none of the witnesses have made any allegation qua
ill-treatment or harassment either physically or mentally caused to
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:44 IST 2026
R/CR.A/695/2014 (GJHC240457862014) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
the deceased at the hands of the accused. On the contrary, the
evidence reveals that as and when the deceased, her husband and
children came to the house of the complainant, they were staying
together happily and no any complaint made by the deceased to the
complainant or any family members.
13. P.W.8 in her chief-examination has specifically admitted that
the accused has not subjected any physical or mental harassment to
the deceased which fact was also confirmed in the cross-examination
that there was no any ill-treatment or harassment caused to the
deceased by the accused. From the evidence of the P.W.9, the fact
reveals that the allegation qua ill-treatment or harassment caused to
the deceased was not proved.
14. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.10 and P.W.11, it appears
that these witnesses have admitted the fact that during the course of
investigation, none of the witnesses have stated about the ill-
treatment or harassment caused to the deceased. Under the
circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled
against the accused as though the marriage span was for more than
seven years, but within short span, no harassment or ill-treatment
either mentally or physically meted out to the deceased by the
accused. Therefore, the trial Court has, after considering the evidence
of the witnesses, assigned the reasons in para 24 and 25 onward.
15. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, it
reveals that the trial Court has, while passing the impugned judgment
and order, referred and relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court with regard to cruelty and the
death caused because of ill-treatment. Considering the evidence of
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:44 IST 2026
R/CR.A/695/2014 (GJHC240457862014) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
the witnesses, it appears that the basic ingredients of Sections 306,
107 and 498(A) of the IPC is not at all proved by the prosecution. If
the Court has to presume against the accused as provided under the
provisions of Section 113(A) and 113(B) of the Evidence Act, there
must be some act on the part of the accused either to provoke the
accused for taking such step by ending her life but there is no
instigation on the part of the accused or any abetment is proved by
the prosecution against the accused. That though the accused was
doing the labour work, but in the evidence of the witnesses, it was
proved that the accused left the house in early morning and returned
in the night as he was doing the work of agriculture and earning his
livelihood. Considering the evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court
has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and
there is no any illegality or infirmity. In view of the above, I am of the
opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error of facts and
law in passing the impugned judgment and order and there is no any
illegality and infirmity found in the judgment and order.
16. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an 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.
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:44 IST 2026
R/CR.A/695/2014 (GJHC240457862014) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
17. 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 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 they are charged.
18. Considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of (1) Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarth reported in
(2001) 9 SCC 618, (2) State of Gujarat Vs. Bhaveshbhai Manilalbhai
Patel reported in 2025 (2) GLR 923, (3) Ram Pyarey Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in (2025) 6 SCC 820, (4) State of Gujarat Vs. Haji
Haroon Meman reported in 2026 (0) JX (Guj) 105 and (5) State of
Gujarat Vs. Ashwinbhai Naginbhai Tandel reported in 2025 (0) JX(Guj)
357, the present appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
19. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:44 IST 2026
R/CR.A/695/2014 (GJHC240457862014) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
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 in the case of 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, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by
the trial Court.
20. 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.
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:44 IST 2026
R/CR.A/695/2014 (GJHC240457862014) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
(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.
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.”
21. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:44 IST 2026
R/CR.A/695/2014 (GJHC240457862014) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
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.
22. 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 him. 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 appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
23. In view of the above, t h e present appeal is devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is 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.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:44 IST 2026