STATE OF GUJARAT vs VIDHYABEN SHANTILAL PATEL

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1060 of 2016
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1190 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
--
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VIDHYABEN SHANTILAL PATEL & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance in Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2016
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No.
1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR BS PATEL SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR CHIRAG B PATEL(3679)
WITH MR UMANG OZA WITH MS ASHA TIWARI for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
===========================================================
Appearance in Criminal Appeal No.1190 of 2016
MS NISHI PATEL FOR HL PATEL ADVOCATES for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR BS PATEL SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR CHIRAG B PATEL(3679)
WITH MR UMANG OZA WITH MS ASHA TIWARI for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3,4
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 19/10/2026

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
1. Since identical issues of law and fact arise for consideration
in the preset appeals, and both the appeals involve common
questions for determination, they are being heard and decided
together by this common judgment.
2. It appears that, pursuant to the order dated 17.2.2026
passed by this Court, the present appeals have been abated
qua Vidhyaben Shantilal Patel - respondent No.1 in Criminal
Appeal No.1060 of 2016 and respondent No.2 in Criminal
Appeal No.1190 of 2016. Accordingly, the appeals now survive
only qua respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal No.1060
of 2016 and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in Criminal Appeal No.
1190 of 2016.
3. The Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2016 is filed by the State
of Gujarat and Criminal Appeal No.1190 of 2016 is filed by the
original complainant under the provisions of Section 378(1)(3)
/ Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the same impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2016
th
passed by the learned 12 Additional Sessions Judge,
Vadodara (hereinafter be referred to as the “Trial Court”) in
Sessions Case No.105 of 2011, whereby the Trial Court has
acquitted the respondents accused from the charges under
Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the India Penal Code
(hereinafter be referred to as the “IPC”).
4. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the
deceased, Pareshaben, who was the sister of the original
complainant, had married Vishnubhai Shantilal Patel
approximately 15 years prior to the incident. Out of the said
Page 2 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
wedlock, the deceased had two children, namely, Nancy, aged
12 years at the time of the incident, and Druvil, aged 10 years
at the time of the incident. In 2008, i.e., on 22.01.2008, her
husband died due to cardiac arrest. Following the death of her
husband, the deceased resided at Village Varnama, Taluka and
District Vadodara, along with her two minor children and her
78-year-old mother-in-law, namely, Vidyaben. It was alleged
that, after the death of her husband, the deceased was
subjected to mental harassment by the respondents-accused,
namely, her mother-in-law and two sisters-in-law, and that,
owing to such harassment, she committed suicide on
16.02.2010, approximately two years after the death of her
husband.
4.1 The prosecution case is based on the complaint lodged by
PW-8, Kalpesh Ghanshyambhai Desai, the brother of the
deceased, vide Exhibit-71, containing detailed allegations
against the respondents-accused. He alleged that, following
the death of Vishnubhai Shantilal Patel, who was his brother-
in-law (Banevi), the property left behind by Vishnubhai would,
in the natural course of succession, devolve upon the
deceased, Pareshaben, and her minor children. However, the
two sisters-in-law of the deceased and their family members,
allegedly with the assistance of Vidyaben, the mother of the
deceased's husband, attempted to deprive the deceased and
her minor children of their lawful rights in the property.
Consequently, the complainant lodged the complaint
containing the aforesaid detailed allegations, which was
exhibited at Exhibit-83.
Page 3 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
4.2 On the basis of the complaint lodged by the brother of the
deceased, the investigating agency initiated an investigation.
Upon finding sufficient evidence against the respondents-
accused, the investigating officer filed a charge-sheet before
the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. As the
offences alleged were exclusively triable by the Court of
Session, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, after
complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 209
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, committed the case to the
competent Sessions Court. Upon receipt of the case papers,
the learned trial Judge framed charges against the
respondents-accused at Exhibit-5 on 14.03.2012 for the
aforesaid offences.
4.3 To prove the charges against the respondents-accused, the
prosecution examined 12 witnesses, including the doctor,
police witnesses, panch witnesses, and the two minor children
of the deceased, Pareshaben. The prosecution also produced
and relied upon 12 documentary exhibits in support of its
case.
4.4 After hearing both the parties and after evaluating the
evidence, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents-
accused from the above mentioned charges. Being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal, the State of Gujarat as well as original complainant
have preferred the present appeals.
5. Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the appellant-
State in Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 2016 and for the
respondent No.1-State in Criminal Appeal No.1190 of 2016,
Page 4 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
Ms. Nishi Patel, learned counsel for H.L. Patel Advocates for
the appellant-original complainant in Criminal Appeal No.
1190 of 2016, Mr. B.S. Patel, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Mr. Chirag B. Patel, learned counsel with Mr. Umang Oza,
learned counsel with Ms. Asha Tiwari, learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 2016
and for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 1190
of 2016.
6. Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court erred in
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in its proper
perspective, and its findings are contrary to the facts and
circumstances of the case. She submitted that the Trial Court
failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the complainant,
Kalpeshbhai Ghanshyambhai Desai (PW-8), examined at
Exh.71, who supported the prosecution case and deposed
that, following the death of his sister Pareshaben’s husband,
Vishnubhai Shantibhai Patel, on 22.01.2008, the respondents
repeatedly taunted her by alleging that she had caused her
husband’s death. The respondents also quarrelled with her
over the property in which her name had been entered in the
revenue records, thereby subjecting her to continuous mental
and physical harassment.
6.1 Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
appreciate that the accused Devilaben had also made
derogatory allegations against the appellant’s sisters,
describing them as inauspicious and attributing the deaths of
her brother and the deceased’s husband to them. She
submitted that the aforesaid evidence was relevant to
Page 5 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
establish the background of the harassment and the strained
relations between the parties.
6.2 Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court erred in
failing to consider that the repeated taunts, quarrels and
harassment allegedly inflicted upon the deceased constituted
cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC and,
according to the prosecution, drove her to commit suicide by
pouring kerosene on herself on 16.02.2010 at about 9:50 a.m.,
resulting in her death due to severe burn injuries. She
submitted that the prosecution alleged that the respondents
accused had thereby committed offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC.
6.3 Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate the scene of offence panchnama (Exh.14),
the post-mortem report (Exh.36) and the inquest panchnama
(Exh.67), along with the evidence of Dr. Vidhyut Khegarbhai
Parmar (Exh.35). The aforesaid oral and documentary
evidence was required to be considered in its entirety and in
conjunction with the other evidence on record.
6.4 Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate the evidence of the Investigating Officers,
Shanabhai Manabhai Tadvi and Dipakbhai Hibulal Gor
respectively. She submitted that their evidence ought to have
been considered along with the other prosecution evidence
while determining whether the charges against the
respondents were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
6.5 Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court failed to
Page 6 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
properly appreciate the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, namely Rajnikant Shantilal Patel (Exh.13),
Bhaveshbhai Kanubhai Amin (Exh.15), Druvilkumar
Vishnubhai Patel (Exh.48), Chimanbhai Parshotam Patel
(Exh.52) and Kaminiben Yogeshbhai Patel. She submitted that
their evidence was required to be assessed collectively to
determine the nature of the alleged harassment and the
circumstances preceding the deceased’s death.
6.6 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.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No. 1190 of 2016 submitted that the Trial Court failed
to consider the prosecution evidence cumulatively and in its
proper perspective and thereby arrived at an erroneous
conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the
charges beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the material evidence on record was
not properly evaluated while passing the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal.
7.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial
Court failed to consider the gravity of the allegations and the
circumstances surrounding the deceased’s death. Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged
continuous harassment, the repeated taunts concerning the
death of the deceased’s husband and the property dispute
were material circumstances requiring due consideration in
determining the culpability of the respondents accused.
Page 7 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
7.2 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial
Court failed to properly deal with the relevant evidence of the
Investigating Officers and the other prosecution witnesses
while recording its findings. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal,
therefore, warrants scrutiny by this Court to determine
whether the evidence has been properly appreciated and
whether the acquittal is sustainable in law.
7.3 Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bansilal v. State of
Haryana, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 359, in support of the
submissions concerning the nature of the alleged harassment
and its proximity to the incident, subject to the applicability of
the principles laid down therein to the facts of the present
case.
7.4 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial
Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law
while appreciating the prosecution evidence and determining
the charges against the respondents accused and the
impugned judgment has resulted in a miscarriage of justice
and that this Court may reappraise the evidence and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7.5 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal is otherwise
erroneous, improper and unsustainable in law and on facts
and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
Page 8 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
8. On the other hand, Mr. B.S. Patel, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents accused persons in both the
appeals supported the judgment and order of acquittal and
opposed the present appeals.
8.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents accused
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.
8.2 Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents accused
submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges
levelled against the respondents accused 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. He submitted that 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 accused with the commission of
the alleged offence.
8.3 Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents accused
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.
Unless the findings recorded by the Trial Court are shown to
Page 9 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
be perverse, illegal, or contrary to the evidence on record, the
Appellate Court should be slow in interfering with an order of
acquittal.
8.4 Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents accused
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.
8.5 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
submitted that the present appeal is devoid of merits and
deserves to be dismissed. The impugned judgment and order
of acquittal passed by the Trial Court therefore deserves to be
confirmed.
9. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order, as well
as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel 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
Page 10 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
suffers from any illegality or perversity?
10. In view of the above-stated submissions and upon perusal
of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, as well as
the evidence recorded by the Trial Court, it is appropriate to
first examine some of the facts of the case. The deceased,
Pareshaben, married Vishnubhai Shantilal Patel approximately
15 years before the incident and had two children, Nancy,
aged 12 years, and Druvil, aged 10 years. Following her
husband's death due to cardiac arrest on 22.01.2008, she
resided at Village Varnama, Vadodara, with her minor children
and 78-year-old mother-in-law, Vidyaben. It was alleged that
the deceased was subjected to mental harassment by her
mother-in-law and two sisters-in-law, which led her to commit
suicide on 16.02.2010.
11. PW-8, Kalpesh Ghanshyambhai Desai, the deceased's
brother, lodged a complaint alleging that the respondents-
accused attempted to deprive the deceased and her minor
children of their lawful rights in the property left by her
husband. The complaint was recorded at Exhibit-71, while the
detailed allegations were exhibited at Exhibit-83.
12. Upon perusal of the documents produced before the Trial
Court and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses,
particularly PW-7, Kaminiben Yogeshbhai Patel, the sister of
the deceased, examined at Exhibit-69, and PW-8, Kalpesh
Ghanshyambhai Desai, the brother of the deceased and the
original complainant, examined at Exhibit-71, it emerges that
the deceased, Pareshaben, married Vishnubhai Shantilal Patel
approximately 14 years before the incident. Out of the said
Page 11 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
wedlock, they had two children, namely, Nancy, aged 12 years,
and Druvil, aged 10 years, at the time of the incident. The
family resided at Village Varnama. Following the death of
Vishnubhai in 2008, Pareshaben continued to reside there
with her two minor children and her mother-in-law.
Vishnubhai was a co-sharer in agricultural land admeasuring
approximately 50 to 60 bighas.
13. It further emerges from the evidence that disputes arose
concerning the agricultural land in which the deceased
Vishnubhai had a share. As the names of the respondents-
accused appeared in the revenue records, the complainant
attempted to assist his sister in getting the names of
Pareshaben and her minor children entered in the revenue
records to protect their interests in the property. The
complainant stated that, being a member of the Bharuch
District Panchayat and being familiar with the procedure for
mutation of revenue entries, he had undertaken the necessary
steps with the bona fide intention of assisting his sister.
14. However, the complainant's cross-examination raises
material questions regarding the prosecution's case, as rightly
discussed by the trial Court. The complainant stated that he
had been informed about the deceased's death by the
Sarpanch of Village Varnama. However, the prosecution did
not examine the Sarpanch. He further stated that, on the day
preceding the incident, one of the respondents-accused had
telephoned him and requested him to advise his sister not to
quarrel with her mother-in-law, Vidyaben. Consequently, the
complainant asked his sister, PW-7 Kaminiben, to speak to
Page 12 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
Pareshaben over the telephone. However, the prosecution did
not produce any evidence to establish whether the deceased
had a landline or mobile telephone connection at her
residence or to identify the telephone number through which
PW-7 had allegedly spoken to her. Although the complainant
claimed that he frequently contacted the deceased on her
mobile phone, he did not provide the investigating officer with
any telephone number or other particulars to substantiate the
alleged communications.
15. The prosecution also examined PW-6, Chimanbhai
Parshottambhai Patel, at Exhibit-52, who was a neighbour of
the deceased and her mother-in-law. He deposed that,
following her husband's death, Pareshaben frequently
quarrelled with her mother-in-law over the agricultural
produce sold by Pareshaben and the compensation payable in
respect of land acquired by the Government. He further stated
that, on the day preceding the incident, the mother-in-law had
telephoned her daughters. However, during cross-
examination, PW-6 admitted that his house was situated more
than 50 metres from the house of the respondents-accused
and that he had not seen the deceased's sisters-in-law visiting
their mother's house for more than a week before the
incident. He also admitted that he did not know whether the
mother-in-law had a landline or mobile telephone connection
at her residence. These admissions cast doubt on the basis of
his knowledge regarding the alleged conversations and
events.
16. The Trial Court considered the depositions of the
Page 13 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
prosecution witnesses in detail and recorded its reasons from
paragraph 11 onwards. It also took into account the
complainant's application seeking appointment as guardian of
the two minor children, which was rejected by the competent
court. Subsequently, Ishwarbhai Parshottambhai Patel, the
brother-in-law of the deceased (Nandoi) and maternal uncle of
the minor children (Fuva), filed an application seeking their
guardianship. The application contained details regarding the
children's circumstances and their consent to his appointment
as guardian. At the relevant time, Druvil was residing with
PW-12, whereas Nancy was residing with another maternal
uncle, Bhupendrabhai. The evidence further indicated that
Nancy was pursuing engineering studies and Druvil was
studying in Class XI (Science), having secured 80% marks in
his Class X examination.
17. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court found the
evidence insufficient to establish the charges against the
respondents-accused and accordingly acquitted them. The
material facts emerging from the prosecution evidence may
be summarised as follows:
17.1 The deceased, Pareshaben, married Vishnubhai Shantilal
Patel approximately 14 years before the incident.

17.2 Out of the wedlock, they had two children, namely,
Nancy, aged 12 years, and Druvil, aged 10 years, at the time
of the incident.
Page 14 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
17.3 Vishnubhai was one of the legal heirs of late Shantilal
Bababhai Patel, along with the other legal heirs, namely, his
mother, his daughters Sudhaben, Meenaxiben, Devilaaben and
Shilaben, and his son Bharatbhai, who was stated to be
mentally retarded.
17.4 Following Vishnubhai's death, the names of his legal
heirs were required to be incorporated into the relevant
revenue records. Vishnubhai held agricultural lands under
Revenue Account No. 448, comprising Revenue Survey Nos.
701, 772, 1096, 1450, 1456, 1473, 1574 and 1583,
admeasuring a total area of 9 hectares, 20 ares and 67 square
metres, situated at Village Varnama.
17.5 It further emerges from the evidence that Vishnubhai
had been managing the agricultural affairs of the family,
particularly because his elder brother, Bharatbhai, was stated
to be mentally retarded. Following Vishnubhai's death, the
names of Pareshaben and her two minor children were
entered in the revenue records along with those of the other
co-sharers. No objection was raised by the respondents-
accused to the said mutation entries, which were duly
certified and reflected in the revenue records produced before
the trial Court.
17.6 A perusal of the revenue records confirms that the names
of Pareshaben and her two minor children had been entered
as co-sharers in the agricultural lands along with the other
legal heirs. The complainant's conduct in initiating
proceedings concerning the property and the circumstances
surrounding the complaint were also considered by the trial
Page 15 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
Court while assessing the prosecution's case.
18. Upon appreciation of the entire oral and documentary
evidence, the trial Court recorded its reasons in paragraphs
11 to 22 and its conclusions from paragraph 35 onwards. On
perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, I
find no perversity, illegality or infirmity warranting
interference with the findings recorded by the learned trial
Court. Accordingly, the judgment and order of acquittal
passed in favour of the respondents-accused do not call for
interference.
19. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the provisions of
Section 498A and 306 of IPC 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.—
Page 16 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
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.
20. 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
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.
21. There is neither direct nor indirect evidence produced by
the prosecution to establish that any act or conduct on the
part of the present respondents had driven the deceased to
such an extent that she was left with no alternative but to take
Page 17 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
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.
22. On perusal of the record of the appeals, it transpires that
the respondent-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.
23. 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.
24. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on
Page 18 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
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 he is charged.
25. 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
Page 19 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
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.
26. 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
Page 20 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
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.”
27. 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.
28. 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
Page 21 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1060/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240528752016)
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.
29. In view of the above, both the appeals are devoid of
merits and deserve to be dismissed. Resultantly, both the
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 22 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 15:58:12 IST 2026