STATE OF GUJARAT vs THAKOR PRAVINJI RAJUJI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1427 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
THAKOR PRAVINJI RAJUJI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 05/11/2026
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant – State under
Section 378 (1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
rd
the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned 3
Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as
"learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2014 on
18.06.2016, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the
respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306
and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC"
for short) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Page 1 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
1.1 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 No. 1 was married to deceased Vinitaben -
daughter of the complainant Varvaji Somaji Thakor, approximately
three years prior to the date of the incident. Thus, the accused No.
1 was the husband of the deceased, whereas, the accused Nos. 2
and 3 were her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. As
per the case of the prosecution, all the accused persons subjected
the deceased to physical and mental harassment and demanded an
amount of Rs.20,000/- from her for the purpose of constructing a
house. It is further alleged that the accused persons used to taunt
the deceased on account of her being childless. Being fed up with
the alleged harassment, meted out to her, by the accused persons,
the deceased, on 12.01.2013, at some time prior to 20:00 hours,
committed suicide by hanging herself at Village Sarana, Taluka:
Vadnagar and the complainant Varvaji Somaji Thakor filed a
complaint before the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Visnagar
Division under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of IPC and Sections 3
Page 2 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which came to be
registered as I-C.R.No.91 of 2013 before Vadnagar Police Station.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after
completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed
before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadnagar
and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the
Sessions Court, Mehsana as per the provisions of Section 209 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions
Case No. 24 of 2014.
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. 5 was framed against the accused and the
statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 6 to 8, wherein,
the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire
evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced nine oral and twenty two
documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the
Page 3 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed
the closing pursis at Exh:47, the further statement of the accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were
recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the
prosecution on record. 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
judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all
the charges leveled 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 cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in
favor of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond
reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established
the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of
acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes
of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondents are
Page 4 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
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 Mr. Krutik Parikh for the appellant –
State, learned advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakore for the respondent
Nos. 1 to 3. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on
record of the case.
5 . Learned APP Mr. Krutik Parikh has taken this Court through
the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and has
submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to
law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not
appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. That the
complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and the
witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial
Court. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond
reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor
contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the
place of incident. That the order passed by the learned Trial Court
is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and
set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
Page 5 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
6 . Learned advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakore for the
respondents, while assailing the case of the prosecution, has
submitted that there is no witness on record having any personal
knowledge of the alleged physical or mental cruelty or any
unlawful demand made by the respondents from the deceased. The
general allegations attributed to the deceased are vague,
uncorroborated and spread over the entire period of her
matrimonial life, without reference to any specific date, occasion or
particular incident. Such general and omnibus allegations do not
satisfy the test of proximity between the alleged cruelty and the
death of the deceased. It is further submitted that none of the
prosecution witnesses had any personal knowledge of the alleged
incidents of harassment, and some of the witnesses have, in fact,
deposed that the deceased was treated well by the respondents and
that they had never heard of any harassment or cruelty being
inflicted upon her by the respondents. It is further submitted that,
as per the prosecution case, a telephone call was received by the
son of the complainant; however, the said son has not been
examined by the prosecution. The allegation regarding physical
assault upon the deceased is also not substantiated by the medical
evidence, as the Medical Officer has not noticed any external
Page 6 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
injuries on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark. It is
further pointed out that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were residing at
Village Sarana, whereas the deceased was residing with respondent
No. 1 at Visnagar. No specific date, time or particular act of cruelty
has been attributed to respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Though
allegations have been levelled that the respondents used to taunt
the deceased on account of her being childless, the said allegations
have not been established by any cogent and reliable evidence. The
learned advocate has further submitted that the essential
ingredients of Sections 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code are
not established from the evidence on record. The presumption
under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act is also not
attracted, as the prosecution is required to establish, as a
foundational fact, that the deceased was subjected to cruelty within
the meaning of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which has
not been proved in the present case. Consequently, there is no
admissible and reliable evidence on record to establish the
allegations levelled against the respondents. It is also contended
that the alleged demand of Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of
constructing a house rests entirely upon unsubstantiated
allegations and has not been proved by the prosecution beyond
Page 7 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
reasonable doubt. Though the grandfather of the deceased was
residing at Visnagar, in the vicinity of the matrimonial house of the
deceased, and his statement had also been recorded during the
course of the accidental death inquiry, the prosecution has not
examined him as a witness before the learned Trial Court. It is,
therefore, submitted that the learned Trial Court has properly
appreciated the entire evidence available on record and has rightly
arrived at its conclusion, warranting no interference by this Court.
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 in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs.
State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415 , wherein,
the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P. , (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC
831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal,
the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised
while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals,
the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one
significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be
interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the
trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and
plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely
because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also
bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any
doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for
differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied)
From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following
general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while
dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
Page 8 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling
reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances',
'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to
curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against
acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of
language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to
interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to
review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case
of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence 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 .
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 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
Page 9 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
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 Mahendra Awase Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradhesh in Criminal Appeal No.
th
221/2025 ( @ SLP(Cr) No. 11868/2023 ) passed on 17 January,
2025 which is as under :
11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
“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.”
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
“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.”
As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the ingredient of
Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A
person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly - 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
Page 10 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
or Thirdly - intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3)
SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the
deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:-
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of
the moment between quarreling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow
thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the
assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. …"
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC
628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306
IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the
accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned
as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention
of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide
is a must for attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707,
this Court held as under:-
“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 there 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.
[Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 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.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State
of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different
shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary
Page 11 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt
out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances
that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in
which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit
of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow
cannot be said to be instigation."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence
and material available on record where-from an inference of the appellant
accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife
therein) may necessarily be drawn.”
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this
Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there
has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active
act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option
and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he/she committed suicide.” [Emphasis supplied]
10. In light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence
Prosecution Witness No.1
on record of the case is appreciated and
Dr. Suresh Kumar Somabhai Patel, examined at Exh: 10, is the
Medical Officer who was on duty at General Hospital, Vadnagar,
and had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead
body of deceased Vinitaben on 12.11.2013. The witness has
produced the post-mortem note at Exh: 11 and the Cause of Death
Certificate at Exh: 14. As per the deposition of the witness and the
medical documents produced on record, the cause of death of the
deceased was asphyxia due to hanging.
Page 12 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
10.1] Prosecution Witness No.2 Varvaji Somaji Thakor
examined at Exh: 19, is the complainant and father of the
deceased. The witness has narrated the facts as stated in the
complaint, which has been produced at Exh: 20.
During his cross-examination, the witness has admitted that
his daughter was residing at Visnagar with accused No. 1 and that
her grandfather was also residing at Visnagar. The witness has
further admitted that his daughter had never informed him about
any harassment or ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused
persons and that she had not lodged any police complaint against
the accused during her lifetime.
10.2] Prosecution Witness No.3 Khodaji Takhaji Thakor
examined at Exh: 21, is a panch-witness to the panchnama of the
scene of offence, which has been produced at Exh: 22.
10.3] Prosecution Witness No.4 Viramji Varvaji Thakor
examined at Exh:23, is the brother of the deceased and has
supported the case of the prosecution.
Page 13 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
However, during his cross-examination, the witness has
stated that accused No. 1 was working at a place prior to his
marriage and, thereafter, was working at Shukan Hotel at
Visnagar. He has further stated that his sister was residing at
Visnagar and that she had never informed him about any
harassment or ill-treatment being inflicted upon her by the
accused persons.
10.4] Prosecution Witness No.5 Prahladji Amaratji
Thakor , examined at Exh: 25, is the uncle of the deceased and has
supported the case of the prosecution.
During his cross-examination, the witness has stated that he
had read about the incident in the newspaper and had gone to
Village Kuda on the third day. His statement was recorded by the
police on the way. He has further stated that on the day when the
complaint was lodged, he had recommended that proper
investigation be conducted in connection with the incident dated
12.11.2013. The witness has admitted that he did not know
whether the deceased and accused No. 1 were residing at Visnagar.
Page 14 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
He was aware that the deceased used to frequently visit her
grandfather's house. He has further stated that the relatives of the
deceased had informed him that the police were not recording
their complaint and, therefore, he had recommended to the police
that the complaint be registered and an appropriate investigation
be carried out.
10.5] Prosecution Witness No.6 Udaji Talaji Thakor,
examined at Exh: 26, is the uncle of the deceased. The witness has
not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared
hostile.
During his cross-examination, the witness has stated that
there was no dispute between accused No. 1 and the deceased and
that the deceased was being treated well by him. He has further
stated that accused No. 1 was working at Shukan Hotel at Visnagar
and that he had merely accompanied the complainant as he was
his relative.
10.6] Prosecution Witness No.7 Yusufkhan Usmankhan
Shaikh examined at Exh: 28, is the Police Station Officer, who had
Page 15 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
registered the complaint. The witness has produced the relevant
extract of the station diary at Exh: 29.
10.7] Prosecution Witness No.8 Dipakkumar Vasudevbhai
Meghani, examined at Exh: 33, is the Asst. Superintendent of
Police, Visnagar, who had conducted the inquiry into the
accidental death of the deceased and had recorded the complaint
of the complainant during the course of such inquiry.
During his cross-examination, the witness has stated that he
had recorded the statement of the complainant on 13.11.2013,
wherein the complainant had stated that he did not have any
suspicion against any person with regard to the death of his
daughter. The complainant had also not stated that the accused
persons had demanded any amount from his daughter or that they
were subjecting her to physical or mental harassment. The witness
has further stated that one Somaji Motiji had also stated that the
deceased was not subjected to any physical or mental harassment
by the accused persons and that he did not have any suspicion
against anyone in connection with her death. The witness has
Page 16 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
admitted that, during the proceedings of the accidental death
inquiry, he had not found any ingredients constituting an offence
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code or any offence under
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
10.8] Prosecution Witness No.9 Kanubhai Becharbhai Patel,
examined at Exh: 35, is the Investigating Officer, who has deposed
about the procedure undertaken by him during the course of
investigation.
During his cross-examination, the witness has stated that he
had obtained the papers pertaining to Accidental Death Inquiry
No. 19 of 2013. He has admitted that the said papers did not
contain any allegation of physical or mental harassment by the
accused persons prior to the death of the deceased. The witness
has further admitted that the deceased had never lodged any
complaint against the accused persons alleging harassment or ill-
treatment during her lifetime.
11] Upon an overall appreciation of the entire evidence adduced
by the prosecution, it emerges that there are material
Page 17 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
contradictions and inconsistencies in the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses. There is no clear, cogent or reliable
evidence establishing that the deceased was subjected to physical
or mental cruelty by the accused persons or that any demand
towards dowry was made from her. Though allegations have been
leveled against the accused persons, the same have not been
substantiated by any independent or reliable evidence.
Significantly, during her lifetime, the deceased had never lodged
any complaint with the police or any other authority alleging
harassment, cruelty or demand of dowry by the accused persons.
Even the complainant, in his statement recorded during the
course of Accidental Death Inquiry No. 19 of 2013, had not raised
any suspicion against any person in connection with the death of
his daughter, nor had he made any allegation regarding physical
or mental harassment or demand of money by the accused
persons. The said material omissions and subsequent
improvements in the prosecution version assume considerable
significance while assessing the credibility of the allegations
leveled against the accused.
Page 18 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
11.1] The evidence on record, therefore, does not establish
any positive act of instigation, intentional aiding or abetment on
the part of the accused persons so as to attract the ingredients of
Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The
mere fact that the deceased committed suicide by hanging, by
itself, would not be sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty of
the offence of abetment of suicide in the absence of cogent
evidence establishing the requisite ingredients of the offence. The
prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the
alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt.
12] In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has properly
appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence available on
record and has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for
arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish
the charges levelled against the accused persons. The findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on a proper
appreciation of the evidence and do not suffer from any perversity,
Page 19 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1427/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240531812016)
illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in its
appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be
confirmed.
13] The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by
rd
the 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.
24 of 2014 on 18.06.2016 is hereby confirmed.
14] Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VISHAL MISHRA
Page 20 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:02:49 IST 2026