Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Krunal Manubhai Vaghela on 2 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1062 of 2011
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 430 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KRUNAL MANUBHAI VAGHELA & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA JADEJA APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR GAURANG K PATEL(2613) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,3
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 02/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgment and order dated 06.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as
“the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.48 of 2009, whereby the trial
Court has acquitted the original accused (respondents herein) from
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 114 etc of the
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that Achalabhai Luhar,
Daulaji – complainant was having five daughters and one son, out of
which one daughter namely Lalita aged about 19 years, who was
married with accused no.1 namely Krunal prior to six months and
after the marriage, daughter of the complainant i.e Lalita was residing
in joint family at Nirnaynagar, Ahmedabad. It is the case of the
prosecution that after the period of 2-3 months, accused no.2 – father-
in-law of Lalita purchased one flat at Satellite and they shifted in the
said flat and since last few months, prior complaint, marriage life of
Lalita was going on smoothly and before two months ago, when Lalita
came to her parental home, she informed that her father-in-law
demanding money of Rs.2 Lakh for purchasing flat, hence all the
accused pressurized her to bring the money from her parental home,
but the complainant did not have the amount and, therefore, he did
not give the said amount, thereafter, Lalita went back to her in-law’s
house. On the occasion of Rakshabandhan, Lalita came to her
parental home and informed that accused the frequently demanded
money mental and physical Lalita persons and were causing
harassment and again Lalita informed to the complainant through the
telephone that accused No.1 beaten her and accused no.3 also
committed cruelty on her by dragging her. That on 8.09.2008, at
about 8:30 P.Μ, one relative of the accused called Rameshbhai, who
was nephew of the complainant informed that Lalita fell down from
terrace, due to which the complainant and other relatives reached
Parekh Hospital, at Ahmedabad at about 12:00 hours in the night,
where Lalita was admitted and seen Lalita was expired. Hence, a
complaint was lodged by the complainant before jurisdictional Police
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
Station for the aforesaid offences. The police prepared panchnama of
the scene of offence and after preparing the arrest panchnama, the
accused came to be arrested. On completion of investigation, charge
sheet was submitted into the Court of learned J.M.F.C..
2.1 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial
Court vide Exhibit 6 for the aforesaid offences against the accused.
On being explained it to them, the accused have denied having
committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge
and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned
Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses and in addition to this,
the prosecution has also produced the documentary evidence.
4. 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 were innocent.
5. 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.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
7. Heard Aditya Jadeja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
appellant – State of Gujarat, Mr.Gautam Patel, learned counsel for the
respondents – accused and Mr.M. B. Rana, learned counsel for the
complainant at length.
8. Mr.Jadeja, 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. 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, 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. He has submitted that it is settled legal position that the
evidence of a single witness is sufficient for conviction if the same is
reliable and trustworthy and in the present case, though the evidence
of all the witnesses are reliable and trustworthy, without any cogent
reason, the trial Court has disbelieved and discarded the evidence of
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
the witnesses.
8.1 Mr.Jadeja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further
submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the
evidence on record, based on erroneous appreciation of material
evidence, and has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court are perverse and unsustainable in
law, thereby calling for interference by this Court in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction. He has also submitted that the learned Trial
Court has materially erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the findings recorded by
the trial Court were therefore perverse, illegal, and contrary to the
evidence on record.
8.2 According to Mr.Jadeja, 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.
9. Per contra, Mr.Patel, 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 no iota of evidence to connect the
accused with the alleged crime in question. Learned counsel for the
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
respondents has submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution
suffers from material contradictions, omissions, and inconsistencies,
which create serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case
and the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of
the alleged offences and has not produced reliable, trustworthy, and
corroborative evidence connecting the respondent with the
commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that it is a settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that the presumption of innocence in favour of an
accused is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless the
findings recorded by the trial Court are shown to be perverse, illegal,
or contrary to the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should be
slow in interfering with an order of acquittal. It is submitted that the
appellant has failed to point out any infirmity, illegality, perversity, or
misreading of evidence in the impugned judgment and order and the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based upon proper
appreciation of the evidence and settled legal principles. Learned
counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appeal being
meritless deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal deserves to be confirmed.
10. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court and the material placed on record, the
questions arise for determination by this Court are as under:-
(1) whether the trial Court has rightly justified in passing the
judgment and order of acquittal.
(2) whether the trial Court has committed an error in not
appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution in its true
and proper perspective.
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
(2) whether there is any illegality, irregularity and perversity in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
11. First this Court has considered the facts of the case that the
deceased Lalita married to respondent No.1 – Kunal Manubhai
Vaghela before eight months from the date of the incident and after
marriage, the deceased along with her in-laws i.e. brother-in-law,
sisters-in-law was residing at Ghatlodiya and after about three months
of the marriage, father-in-law of the deceased purchased a new flat at
Satellite more particularly Prahladnagar area and they shifted to the
said flat and on account of purchase of new flat, accused demanded
Rs.1.5 Lakh to Rs.2.00 Lakh from the deceased and because of that
reason the deceased was harassed and given mental and physical
torture by all the accused. Due to ill-treatment and harassment
caused to the deceased, the deceased had committed suicide by
jumping from the terrace of the Apartment and due to which, she died
and thereafter, the FIR came to be registered by the complainant on
08.09.2008. The information with regard to accident was given by
P.W.4 – Rameshbhai Jivrambhai – brother of accused No.2 Manubhai
Jivrambhai. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on account of
non-payment of the amount, the accused have given mental and
physical torture to the deceased and because of that she jumped from
the terrace of the Apartment. It appears from the record that the
prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses to prove the case
against the accused and produced the documentary evidence, out of
which, P.W.1 – Bhupendrabhai Manibhai Mistri, P.W.2 – Pravinbhai
Kanubhai Dantani and P.W.3 Jashiben Keshavlal Chauhan were the
panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The
evidence of P.W.5 Mathuraben Achalaji Luhar, P.W.6 Achalaji
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
Dholabhai Luhar and P.W.7 Sureshbhai Achalaji Luhar are crucial in
nature. From the evidence of these witnesses, it appears that there
are material contradiction in their evidence with regard to the
demand and due to said demand, the harassment and mental torture
caused to the deceased at the hands of the accused. The parents of
the deceased has deposed in their depositions that before two days of
the incident, they received a phone call from the deceased and,
therefore, they have asked the deceased that P.W.7 Sureshbhai
Achalabhai Luhar visited the Ahmedabad and brought the deceased
at Deesa. In between two days, there was no communication, on the
other hand, P.W.7 Sureshbhai, brother of deceased stated that on the
eve of Janmashthami, lastly the deceased has visited his house and,
thereafter, no any information was received from the deceased either
about demand or harassment. From the evidence of P.W.14 Ileshbhai
Jagubhai Patel, Police Inspector and P.W.13 Jayantilal Joitaram Patel,
Investigating Officer more particularly cross-examination of P.W.13, it
appears that he has neither visited the place of the incident nor
recorded the statement of the witnesses, who resided in the said
apartment nor has he collected any evidence while visiting the place
of incident. It is further the case of the prosecution that the deceased
was residing with her husband and other family members including
brother-in-law and sister-in-law. It appears that if the accused have
made demand of amount from the deceased then they could have
also raised demand from parents of Komalben, but unfortunately the
prosecution has not recorded the statement of Komalben or other
witnesses resided in the same apartment or nearby. The Investigating
Officer has not taken proper care to investigate the case in a serious
manner. If this Court considers the case as it is then it is very serious
offence, but it was not properly investigated and no any such
evidence was collected during the course of the investigation and,
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
therefore, the prosecution unable to lead the cogent and convincing
evidence before the trial Court and in absence of such evidence, the
trial Court was unable to pass the order of conviction unless the
prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the
present case, the allegation in respect of the demand and ill-
treatment and harassment, it is not supported by cogent and
convincing evidence, which has not been collected by the
Investigating Officer during the investigation. So far as the abetment
to commit suicide under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the IPC is
concerned, there was no material worth the name on record. Even if
the Court has to consider and draw inference under Section 113A and
113B of the Evidence Act, then, the Court has to appreciate the
immediate and corroborative piece of evidence and the circumstances
surrounding for drawing inference. In the present case, no such
evidence is come forth on record and, therefore, the trial Court has
while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, dealth
with and discussed such facts and evidence of the witnesses more
particularly in para – 9 onwards and and also discussed the decisions
referred and relied upon by the defence side from para 27 onwards.
At this stage, it is relevant to note that before registering the FIR at
the behest of the mother of the deceased prior thereto there was an
accidental entry was registered before the Satellite Police Station
being Accidental Entry No. 50 of 2008 and no statement was recorded
and other panchnama was also drawn in respect of the accidental
death which was investigated by the jurisdictional police.
Unfortunately, while investigating the case, the said document was
not perused by the Investigating Officer nor the same was part and
parcel of the charge-sheet made by the Investigating Officer and,
therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge
levelled against the accused and hence, the trial Court has not
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal. Since the presumption of innocence is already established
by the accused before the trial Court, the respondents are having
double presumption in their favour with regard to innocence. In view
of the above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not
committed any error of acts and law in passing the impugned
judgment and order and there is no any illegality and infirmity found
in the judgment and order.
12. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However,
Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption
of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
13. 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
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
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.
14. 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 No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble
Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more
particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, we are in complete
agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
15. 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:-
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
“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 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
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
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.”
16. It is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported
in (2024) 3 SCC 573 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
and observed in paras 12, 13, 14 and 24 as under:-
“[12] 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.”
[13] Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence
under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and
abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined under
Section 107 IPC 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; orThirdly. – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1. – A person who by wilful misrepresentation,
or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is
bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of
the commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that
act.”
[14] This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and
another, 2021 19 SCC 144, has considered the provisions
of Section 306 IPC along with the definition of abetment
under Section 107 IPC observed as under:-
“14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a
criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same.
…
15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’
is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do
something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 618, has defined the word
‘instigate’ as under:-
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do “an act”.”
16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-
relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed
repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena Vs.
Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr, 2010 12 SCC 190, it was
observed as under:-
“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
Without a positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of
the cases decided by the Supreme Court is 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 alsoPage 14 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased
to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he committed suicide.”
[24] Section 113A of the Evidence Act reads thus:-
“113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married
woman.-When the question is whether the commission of
suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or
any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had
committed suicide within a period of seven years from the
date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative
of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may
presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of
the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her
husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation.-
For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the
same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860).”
17. It is beneficiary to referred to the decisions in the case of (1)
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarth reported in (2001) 9 SCC
618, (2) State of Gujarat Vs. Bhaveshbhai Manilalbhai Patel reported
in 2025 (2) GLR 923, (3) Ram Pyarey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2025) 6 SCC 820, (4) State of Gujarat Vs. Haji Haroon
Meman reported in 2026 (0) JX (Guj) 105 and (5) State of Gujarat Vs.
Ashwinbhai Naginbhai Tandel reported in 2025 (0) JX(Guj) 357.
18. 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.
19. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1062/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
undefined
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
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
20. In view of the above, the 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.
21. In view of the disposal of the criminal appeal, the criminal
revision application stands also dismissed.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Jul 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 07 20:56:26 IST 2026
