STATE OF GUJARAT vs VIJAYBHAI BHANUBHAI BHOI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1286 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==================================================
Yes No
Approved for Reporting
✔
==================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VIJAYBHAI BHANUBHAI BHOI & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR PH BUCH(1018) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 13/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) against the judgment
th
and order dated 06.07.2013 passed by the learned 6 Additional
Sessions Judge, Nadiad (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”)
in Sessions Case No.68 of 2012, whereby the trial Court has acquitted
the original accused (respondents herein) from the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for short).
Page 1 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the
complainant, Jetalben Pankajbhai Bhoi, sister of the deceased
Neetaben, lodged a complaint against the accused persons at Nadiad
Town Police Station, Kheda, which was registered as I-CR No. 80 of
2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114
of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that the
marriage of the deceased, Neetaben, was solemnized with respondent
No. 1, Vijaybhai Bhanubhai Bhoi, on 04.02.2006. Respondent No. 2,
Ilaben Bhanubhai Bijalbhai Bhoi, was the mother-in-law of the
deceased, while respondent No. 3, Bhanubhai Bijalbhai Bhoi, was her
father-in-law. It is further the case of the prosecution that, after the
marriage, the respondents subjected the deceased to harassment by
pressuring her to bring money from her parental home. On
03.06.2012, the respondents allegedly again pressured Neetaben to
bring money from her parental home. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
allegedly instigated respondent No. 1 to beat Neetaben while taunting
her by calling her “Vanjani Che” (meaning “barren”). In this manner,
the respondents allegedly subjected her to physical and mental
cruelty and thereby abetted her to commit suicide. It is further
alleged that, due to the continuous harassment and cruelty inflicted
upon her, Neetaben, in a state of frustration, committed suicide by
strangulation sometime between 00:30 hours and 06:00 hours on
03.06.2012. Accordingly, the complainant lodged the aforesaid
complaint against the respondents.
2.2 On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was initiated
and after thorough investigation as there was sufficient evidence
against the respondents-accused, charge sheet was filed before the
learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nadiad.
Page 2 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
2.3 As the offences committed by the accused persons were
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions as per the provisions of
209 of Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Judge committed the
case to the Court of Sessions and the case was transferred and placed
th
for trial before the learned 6 Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad,
which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No. 68 of 2012.
2.4 Thereafter, charge was framed against them for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code. On being explained it to them, the accused have denied having
committed any offence. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to
the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore, laid
evidence.
2.5 In order to bring home the charge levelled against the accused
persons, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses as well as
produced 13 documentary evidences on the record of the case.
3. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been
recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and
have stated that they are 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 them.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
Page 3 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
this appeal.
6. Heard Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr. P.H. Buch, learned counsel for
the respondents – accused at length.
7. Ms. Bhatt , learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which
are narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that the
prosecution has examined witnesses and produced documentary
evidence, despite this fact, the trial Court has not considered the
same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal. Ms. Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence,
has assailed the impugned judgment and order and submitted that
the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence
connecting the accused to the alleged offence in its proper
perspective and even the prosecution has been able to prove the
charges levelled against the accused. While referring to the evidence
of the witnesses and the material collected against the accused, Ms.
Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
prosecution has established the case against the accused by
examining the witnesses, who have supported the case of the
prosecution, however, the trial Court has discarded and disbelieved
the evidence of these witnesses. She 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. She 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
Page 4 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
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 Ms. Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted
that the deceased, Neetaben, had been married to respondent No. 1
for approximately six and a half years. She has further submitted that
both sisters, namely, deceased Neetaben and the complainant,
Jetalben, were married to real brothers, i.e., respondent No. 1 and his
brother, Pankaj, respectively. Since the complainant was the real
sister of the deceased and was residing under the same roof, she was
well acquainted with all the facts and circumstances of the case and,
therefore, lodged the complaint containing detailed allegations.
However, the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate her evidence
while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Thus,
the Trial Court committed a serious error of law and on facts in
appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
7.2 Ms. Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has further
submitted that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the
evidence of Hiteshbhai, the brother of the deceased, Ramabhai, the
father of the deceased, and other witnesses in their true perspective.
The Trial Court also discarded the evidence concerning the fact that,
approximately two years prior to the alleged incident, deceased
Neetaben had lodged an FIR against the present respondents and
other accused persons named therein. The Trial Court disregarded
this piece of evidence merely on the ground that the present
respondents had been acquitted in the said criminal case, as the
allegations made by the deceased had not been proved by the
prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the learned
Page 5 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
Additional Public Prosecutor, the mere acquittal of the accused in the
earlier criminal case lodged by the deceased did not, by itself, render
the evidence in the present case insufficient. However, the Trial Court
failed to consider this aspect of the evidence in its true and proper
perspective while passing the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal.
7.3 According to Ms. Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have
imposed necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow the present
appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal.
7.4 Ms. Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in support of
her submissions, has urged that the authorities cited on behalf of the
State before the Trial Court be treated as part and parcel of her
arguments, as she has referred to and relied upon the said decisions.
8. Per contra, Mr. Buch, learned counsel for the respondents –
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 them.
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.
8.1 Mr. Buch, learned counsel for the respondents-accused, has
Page 6 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
further submitted that no specific evidence was adduced before the
Trial Court to establish any harassment, cruelty, or demand for dowry
on the part of the respondents-accused. He has submitted that the
depositions of the witnesses do not disclose any evidence as to when,
in what manner, or by whom any such harassment, cruelty, or
demand for dowry was committed or made. Therefore, the Trial Court
was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal. He has further submitted that, in an appeal against
acquittal, the scope of interference by this Court is limited, and unless
any glaring defect, illegality, or perversity is found in the impugned
judgment and order, the Court would ordinarily refrain from
interfering with the order of acquittal.
8.2 In support of his submissions, Mr. Buch, learned counsel for the
respondents-accused, has referred to and relied upon the decisions
cited on behalf of the defence before the Trial Court. He has
therefore, prayed to confirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the
present appeal.
9. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court, the questions arise for determination are as
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.
Page 7 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
10. 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.
Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order, as well as the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the following facts emerge.
The marriage of the deceased, Neetaben, was solemnized with
respondent No. 1 on 04.02.2006. The complainant, Jetalben, who is
the sister of the deceased, Neetaben, was married to Pankajbhai, the
younger brother of respondent No. 1. After their respective marriages,
the complainant and the deceased were residing in a joint family with
their father-in-law and mother-in-law under the same roof. Owing to a
quarrel between the deceased, Neetaben, and respondent No. 1, her
husband, the deceased had left her matrimonial home approximately
two years prior to the alleged incident. Thereafter, the respondents
made efforts to persuade the deceased to return to her matrimonial
home. However, she did not return. Consequently, respondent No. 1,
through his advocate, issued a legal notice to the deceased. The said
notice was neither replied to by the deceased nor did she
communicate any reason for not returning to her matrimonial home.
Therefore, respondent No. 1 instituted a civil suit for restitution of
conjugal rights before the Court of the learned Civil Judge. In the said
proceedings, an order was passed in favour of respondent No. 1.
Despite the said order, the deceased did not return to her matrimonial
home. Thereafter, the respondents convened a meeting of the
community panchayat, wherein the leaders of their community
assembled in the presence of the panchas. During the said meeting, it
was decided that the deceased should return to her matrimonial
home. However, instead of returning, the deceased lodged a
complaint against the respondents and other accused persons named
Page 8 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
in the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, etc.
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Pursuant to the investigation, the
police filed a charge-sheet, and upon consideration of the evidence
collected during the investigation and the material placed on record,
the concerned Court acquitted the accused persons in the said case.
Thereafter, the respondents once again made efforts to persuade the
deceased, Neetaben, to return to her matrimonial home. Eventually,
approximately one and a half years prior to the alleged incident, the
deceased returned to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the marital
relationship between the deceased and respondent No. 1 appeared to
be cordial, and they were leading their lives peacefully. Even on
occasions such as marriages and other family functions, respondent
No. 1 and the deceased used to visit the parental home of the
deceased together, where they would remain present and stay
happily. During such visits, no complaint was made by the deceased
or her parental family members, nor was any objection raised or
resistance shown by them with regard to the deceased's matrimonial
relationship.
11. It is further the case of the prosecution that, during the night of
02.06.2012 and the early hours of 03.06.2012, an altercation and
quarrel took place between the deceased, Neetaben, and respondent
No. 1, her husband. On account of the said altercation, the deceased
came down to the ground floor and committed suicide inside her bed
room by hanging herself. In the early morning hours of 03.06.2012,
upon waking up, her mother-in-law immediately called the other
respondents, who took the deceased to the Civil Hospital, where she
was declared dead. The family members of the deceased were
immediately informed of the incident, and they also arrived at the
respondents' residence. Thereafter, Jetalben, the sister of the
Page 9 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
deceased Neetaben and the wife of the younger brother of
respondent No. 1, along with her brother Hiteshbhai, approached the
jurisdictional police station and lodged a complaint. In the complaint,
Jetalben made detailed allegations that, at the instigation of
respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respondent No. 1 had subjected the
deceased to mental and physical cruelty and had also demanded
dowry from her family. Accordingly, the respondents were charged
with offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC). To prove the charges, the prosecution
examined as many as 13 witnesses, including the doctor who
conducted the post-mortem examination, police witnesses, and panch
witnesses.
12. So far as the allegations made by the complainant, Jetalben,
that the deceased was beaten by her husband and that she
committed suicide on account of such physical cruelty are concerned,
the testimony of PW-1, Dr. Sureshbhai Shankerbhai Patel, at Exh. 11,
is relevant. The doctor deposed before the Trial Court that, during the
post-mortem examination conducted on 03.06.2012, no external
injuries were found on the body of the deceased. He further stated
that there were no injuries likely to have been caused within 18 hours
prior to the examination. Thus, the allegations made by the
complainant regarding the physical assault of the deceased are not
corroborated by the medical evidence on record.
13. So far as the testimony of the complainant, Jetalben, is
concerned, although she was residing in the same house as the
deceased, Neetaben, and made serious allegations against the
respondents, she did not provide any specific details regarding the
nature and manner of the alleged mental and physical cruelty inflicted
Page 10 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
upon the deceased. She also failed to specify whether the
respondents had physically assaulted the deceased on any prior
occasion or had demanded any dowry articles from her or her family.
Furthermore, during her cross-examination, the complainant admitted
before the Trial Court that, following the death of her sister, she left
her matrimonial home and did not wish to return to it. This admission
may be considered while assessing her conduct and the credibility of
her testimony, particularly in the context of the defence's contention
that her allegations were motivated by vengeance.
14. Now, if the testimonies of PW-3, Hiteshbhai, the brother of the
deceased, at Exh. 31; PW-4, Hemaben, his wife, at Exh. 34; and PW-5,
Ramabhai, the father of the deceased, at Exh. 35, are considered, it
becomes evident that none of these witnesses supported the
allegations made by the complainant regarding the demand for dowry
or the mental and physical cruelty and harassment allegedly inflicted
upon the deceased by the respondents. Further, with regard to the
allegation that the respondents had taunted the deceased by calling
her a barren woman because she was unable to conceive, the said
allegation is contradicted by the contents of the complaint lodged by
the deceased herself before the concerned police authority. In the
said complaint, the deceased specifically stated that she was
pregnant at the time of lodging the complaint regarding the
harassment and her being driven out of the matrimonial home.
Therefore, the allegation that the respondents had taunted the
deceased as a barren woman is not established by the prosecution
evidence and, rather, appears to be inconsistent with the facts
emerging from the record.
15. Even with regard to the allegations of harassment and cruelty,
Page 11 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
neither the complainant nor her brother or father has provided any
specific evidence establishing the nature and manner of the alleged
harassment or torture inflicted upon the deceased. It is pertinent to
note that the complainant, being the sister of the deceased, was
residing under the same roof with the deceased and the very same in-
laws against whom the allegations have been levelled. However, she
did not depose about any specific instance of harassment or cruelty
allegedly inflicted upon her by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Although the
circumstances concerning the complainant and the deceased may not
necessarily have been identical, the absence of any specific testimony
regarding the alleged conduct of the respondents is a relevant
circumstance to be considered while appreciating the prosecution's
case. Furthermore, despite the fact that the complainant and the
deceased were daughters of the same parents, neither the brother,
Hiteshbhai, nor the father, Ramabhai, provided any evidence
regarding a specific demand for dowry articles made by the
respondents. Even the complaint lodged by the deceased herself does
not contain any allegation regarding a demand for Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Moreover, there is no substantive evidence on record, particularly in
the testimonies of Hiteshbhai and Ramabhai, to establish that the
respondents had demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- from the father of the
deceased. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish, through the
testimony of these witnesses, the alleged demand for dowry of Rs.
1,00,000/-.
16. In light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is
pertinent to note that the police officer admitted before the Trial Court
that he had not recorded the statements of the near relatives of the
deceased or the neighbours residing in the vicinity of the matrimonial
home of the deceased at Nadiad. Instead, he had recorded the
Page 12 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
statements only of the relatives of the deceased who were residing at
village Boriyavi. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses requires
careful scrutiny. It is equally well settled that the testimony of a
witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the witness is
a close relative of the deceased. However, such evidence must be
scrutinized carefully, and if found reliable and trustworthy, a
conviction can be based upon it. In the present case, however, none
of the witnesses has made any specific averment or narrated any
particular incident indicating when, where, and in whose presence the
alleged demand for dowry was made or any incident of cruelty or
harassment took place. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to
adduce any cogent and reliable evidence establishing the specific
instances of dowry demand, cruelty, or harassment allegedly
committed by the respondents.
17. Merely because the deceased committed suicide and died an
unnatural death, it cannot, by itself, be sufficient to establish the guilt
of the respondents. The prosecution is required to prove the alleged
harassment inflicted upon the deceased and establish whether any
act or omission on the part of the respondents amounted to
instigation, provocation, or abetment that led the deceased to commit
suicide. In the absence of such evidence, the respondents cannot be
held guilty merely on the basis of the unnatural death of the
deceased. In the present case, the essential ingredients of Sections
107, 498A, and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) have not been
established by the prosecution. The Trial Court has also considered
the applicability of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in
view of the fact that the deceased died within seven years of her
marriage. After an elaborate discussion of the evidence adduced by
the prosecution and the relevant provisions of law, the Trial Court
Page 13 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
dealt with these aspects in paragraphs 12 to 30. It further discussed,
from paragraph 34 onwards, the judicial precedents and decisions
cited and relied upon by both sides.
18. From the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court, certain
undisputed facts emerge from the evidence of the witnesses, which
are summarized as under :
[a] That the deceased, Neetaben, married respondent No. 1
in 2006, and in 2011, she lodged a complaint against the
respondents and the other persons named therein;
[b] That the complainant, Jetalben, the sister of the
deceased, was married to the younger brother of respondent
No. 1, who is the son of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. After their
respective marriages, the complainant and the deceased
resided in the same house with their respective husbands;
[c] That, in respect of Criminal Case No. 5542 of 2011, which
was instituted pursuant to the complaint lodged by the
deceased herself, she did not support the allegations made in
her complaint during the course of the proceedings.
Consequently, the concerned Court acquitted the accused of
the charges levelled against them.
[d] That, prior to the deceased lodging the complaint,
respondent No. 1, her husband, had initiated proceedings for
restitution of conjugal rights with a view to bringing the
deceased back to her matrimonial home and resuming
cohabitation. Although an order of acquittal was subsequently
Page 14 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
passed in the criminal case arising out of the complaint lodged
by the deceased, she did not return to her matrimonial home.
Thereafter, at the request of both parties, members of their
community were called upon to intervene in the matter. In the
presence of the panchas and community leaders, it was decided
that the deceased should return to her matrimonial home.
However, despite the said decision, the deceased did not
comply with it.
[e] That, after the deceased returned to her matrimonial
home, no complaint or allegation was made for approximately
one and a half years regarding any quarrel, harassment, or
cruelty allegedly inflicted upon her by the respondents.
[f] That, while the prosecution examined witnesses who were
close relatives of the deceased, the Investigating Officer (I.O.)
did not record the statements of any independent witnesses
residing at Nadiad, nor were any such witnesses cited in the
charge-sheet. Furthermore, the prosecution did not examine
any independent witnesses during the trial.
19. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the only conclusion that
can be drawn is that the reasons recorded by the Trial Court are just,
proper, and in consonance with the settled principles of law, as well
as the facts and evidence adduced by the prosecution before it. Upon
perusal of the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court, particularly the
conclusions set out in paragraph 39 onwards, I am in complete
agreement with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. In view of the
settled legal principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
decisions in the cases of Ram Pyarey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ,
Page 15 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
reported in [2025] 6 SCC 820 , Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh , reported in [2001] 9 SCC 618 , Gangula Mohan
Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in [2010] 1 SCC
750 , Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana , reported in [2024] 3
SCC 573 , the prosecution is required to prove the essential
ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC to establish abetment of suicide,
read with Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, in
the present case, the essential ingredients necessary for the
application of the aforesaid provisions have not been established by
the prosecution. There is no clinching, cogent or reliable evidence on
record to bring home the guilt of the respondents or to establish their
involvement in the offence in question. In the absence of any
substantive evidence connecting the respondents with the alleged
offence, the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record
and recorded cogent and convincing reasons while passing 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.
20. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an Appellate Court
has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate
Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
Page 16 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
21. 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.
22. 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
Page 17 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
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.
23. 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 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
Page 18 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
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.”
24. 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 have committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
25. 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 prove the charge levelled against the accused
Page 19 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1286/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240445442013)
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
26. 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 20 of 20
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 18:10:43 IST 2026