DIPAKBHAI NATUBHAI BHOI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1320 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==================================================
Yes No
Approved for Reporting
✔
==================================================
DIPAKBHAI NATUBHAI BHOI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
DR. HARDIK K RAVAL(6366) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KUMAR H TRIVEDI(9364) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 08/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant – original complainant has preferred this appeal
under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) against the judgment
rd
and order dated 16.01.2014 passed by the learned 3 Additional
Sessions Judge, Anand (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”)
in Sessions Case No.70 of 2012, whereby the trial Court has acquitted
the original accused (respondent No.2 herein) from the offences
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the IPC’ for short).
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that, on
21.03.2012, the appellant/complainant filed a complaint stating
therein that, his marriage solemnized in the year 2005 with one
Dharmishthaben as per rites and rituals. That he has one child named
Kush. That his wife was serving as Vidya Sahayak, for which, she used
to travel daily by way of up down. He further states that he had gone
to UK on 25.12.2009 and returned on 25.04.2010. That, on
29.06.2011, he had received one call from unknown person who
introduced himself as a member from hospital staff and informed him
that his wife was serious and had been referred to the hospital. The
complainant informed the same to other relatives and all of them
reached to the hospital where one person told them that he had made
call and further informed them that the wife of the complainant has
consumed poison and therefore, he brought her to the hospital.
2.2 That, one of the friends of the complainant's father informed
them that the person who referred Dharmishtha to the hospital
belonged to their community and his name was Ashokbhai i.e.
respondent No.2. That, Dharmishtha was referred to Karamsad for
further treatment, where doctor declared her as dead and therefore,
Accidental Death No. 14/2011 was registered at Borsad Town Police
Station. That, after some time, the complainant came to know that
Ashokbhai belonged to his community and when he was in London,
his mother had visited Ashokbhai for the purpose of engaging him
with his sister Radha. That, Ashokbhai met the wife of the
complainant. That, Ashokbhai used to attend all the functions and
ceremonies of his family without any invitation. That, Ashokbhai was a
LIC agent and he had taken one Insurance Policy worth Rs.
10,00,000/- for the wife of the complainant without anyone's
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
knowledge. That, Ashokbhai had bought a mobile for Dharmishtha.
2.3 It is further stated that his wife Dharmishtha and Ashokbhai had
illicit relationship and they used to meet in hotel rooms and at
Ashokbhai's office. That, the marriage of Ashokbhai solemnized on
23.06.2011 with one Jagrutiben. That, when the complainant was in
London, Ashokbhai used to talk with him on his phone and used to
advise him to settle down in UK. That, Ashokbhai also used to visit the
school where Dharmishtha was serving. That, Ashokbhai used to visit
the account of Orkut site of the complainant. That, after the
complainant returned from UK, Ashokbhai had neither talked with him
nor operated his Orkut account, but after the death of Dharmishtha,
he had operated his account just once. Hence, a complaint was filed
by the complaint in the aforesaid facts and circumstances for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC against the
respondent-accused.
2.4 The investigation proceeded and the Investigating Officer filed
charge-sheet before the learned JMFC, Borsad. As the case was
exclusively triable by the Session Court the learned JMFC committed
the case before the Session Court, as per the provision of Section 209
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came to be registered as
Sessions Case No. 70 of 2012 and it came to be transferred to the
rd
learned 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Anand for trial.
2.5 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 him, the accused has denied having committed any
offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to
be tried.
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
2.6 In order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused,
the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses and also
produced 33 documentary evidence on record of the case.
3. 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.
4. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
6. Heard Mr. Hardik k. Raval, learned counsel for the appellant –
original complainant, Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and Mr. Kumar
H. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – original accused
at length.
7. Mr. Raval , learned counsel appearing for the appellant – original
complainant 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.
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
While referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence,
Mr. Raval, learned counsel 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. While
referring to the evidence of the witnesses and the material collected
against the accused, Mr. Raval, learned counsel 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 discarded and disbelieved
the evidence of these witnesses. He 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. He 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.
7.1 Mr. Raval , learned counsel has further submitted that the trial
Court has failed to appreciate the depositions of the witnesses as well
as the documentary evidences produced on record and the
prosecution has proved the case that the respondent-accused had
illicit relationship with the deceased Dharmishtha and both used to
meet regularly and had very strong relationship with each other and
when the respondent-accused got married on 23.06.2011, the
deceased and the respondent-accused met thereafter and in presence
of the respondent-accused, the deceased consumed poison and
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
committed suicide on 29.06.2011, which would suggest that the
respondent-accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide,
because of which, the deceased in his presence had consumed
poison. According to Mr. Raval, learned counsel, the trial Court ought
to have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed necessary
sentence. He has therefore, prayed to allow the present appeal and to
quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
8. Per contra, Mr. Trivedi, 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 not an iota of evidence connecting the
accused with the alleged crime in question. He has therefore, prayed
to confirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the present appeal.
9. Since the State of Gujarat has not preferred any appeal against
the order of acquittal, Ms. Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent–State of Gujarat, has supported the
findings recorded by the trial Court and submitted that, upon duly
evaluating the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has
passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, which is in
consonance with the settled principles of law.
10. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court, the questions arise for determination are as
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
under:-
(1) whether the trial Court is justified in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal.
(2) whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
led by the prosecution in recording the reasons.
(3) whether there is any illegality, irregularity or any perversity in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
11. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone
through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court.
It is the case of the prosecution that the wife of PW-4–complainant,
namely deceased Dharmishtha, was married to the complainant in the
year 2005 and, out of their wedlock, they had one son, namely Kush,
who was aged about four years at the time of the alleged incident. It
is further the case of the prosecution that, on 25.12.2009, the
complainant visited the United Kingdom and returned therefrom on
25.04.2010. Thereafter, on 29.06.2011, i.e. after a period of almost 14
months, the deceased Dharmishtha consumed a poisonous substance
and was found lying near a bus stop. She was thereafter brought to
Shraddha Hospital, where one of the employees of the said hospital
telephoned the complainant and informed him that a lady, namely
Dharmishtha, had been brought to the hospital in a serious condition,
as she had consumed some poisonous substance and was
unconscious. Upon receiving the said information, the complainant
went to the hospital and found that his wife was admitted to Shraddha
Hospital in a critical condition.
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
12. That, on 29.06.2011 itself, the deceased died and her post-
mortem was conducted on the same day at about 06:30 p.m. and
completed at 07:25 p.m. by the doctor, as stated in the medical
evidence at Exh.-16, wherein the cause of death of the deceased was
opined to be Monocrotophos (Organo non thio phospharus) Poisoning.
At that time, no complaint was lodged, and all the post-death rituals
were performed by the complainant and his family members.
Thereafter, after a period of almost nine months, i.e. on 21.03.2012,
the complainant lodged the present complaint at Exh.-26 against the
respondent-accused. Even in the said complaint, the complainant did
not raise any suspicion regarding any relationship between his
deceased wife and the respondent-accused. However, subsequently,
during the course of further evidence, it was brought on record that
the deceased was allegedly having an extra-marital relationship with
the respondent-accused. It was further alleged that, during the
absence of the complainant, who had visited the United Kingdom
during the period from 2009 to 2010, the respondent-accused had
married one Jagrutiben Rajubhai Patel on 23.06.2011. However, as
there were no cordial relations between the respondent-accused and
his wife, the respondent-accused obtained divorce in accordance with
their customary practice by executing a divorce deed on 16.08.2011,
i.e. within a period of about two months from the date of their
marriage.
13. The prosecution examined Jagrutiben, PW-11, at Exh.-42, with a
view to establishing that the respondent-accused intended to marry
the deceased Dharmishtha and, therefore, had obtained a divorce
from her. However, the deposition of PW-11 does not support the said
fact or the case of the prosecution. Even from the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, not an iota of reliable or trustworthy evidence
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
has been brought on record to substantiate the allegation regarding
the alleged extra-marital relationship between the deceased
Dharmishtha and the respondent-accused. Consequently, the
essential ingredients necessary to establish the charge under Section
306 of the IPC have not been established by the prosecution.
14. At this juncture, the provisions of Section 107 of the IPC are
required to be looked into, which is reproduced hereunder :
107. Abetment of a thing.—
A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
(First)— Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Secondly)— Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes
place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or
(Thirdly)— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing.
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.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to
apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully
represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend
C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
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.
15. Now, considering the basic ingredients of Section 107 of the
IPC, there is no evidence on record to establish that the respondent-
Page 9 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
accused had, in any manner, provoked, instigated or abetted the
deceased Dharmishtha to commit suicide by consuming a poisonous
substance. It is also pertinent to note that, at the relevant point of
time, i.e. on 29.06.2011, no allegation was made either by the
complainant or by any of his family members against the respondent-
accused, nor was any suspicion or doubt raised against him in
connection with the death of the deceased. Furthermore, the
complaint came to be lodged after an inordinate delay of almost nine
months from the date of the alleged incident, and the subsequent
allegation that the deceased was having an extra-marital relationship
with the respondent-accused is not supported by the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses. In view of the fact that the prosecution has
failed to establish the charge against the respondent-accused, the
trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and, from
paragraph 11 onwards up to paragraph 30, has recorded cogent and
convincing findings. Thereafter, upon considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the law laid down in the reported
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High
Courts, the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal. 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 I do not find any illegality,
perversity, or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order
warranting interference by this Court.
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
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
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.
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. 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.
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
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 recorded by the trial Court.
19. 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
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
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.”
20. 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.
21. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1320/2014 (GJHC240462372014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
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.
22. 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)
Dolly
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 14:47:18 IST 2026