Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Indravadan @ Ishwar Shantilal S vs State Of Gujarat on 12 March, 2026
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 3-4 OF 2010
INDRAVADAN @ ISHWAR SHANTILAL S. & ORS. … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT … RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. The appellants, Indravadan alias Ishwar Shantilal Solanki
(husband), Hemlataben alias Hemaben Jashubhai Solanki (sister-
in-law – Jethani) and Jashubhai Shantilal Solanki (Brother-in-
Law – Jeth) have filed the present appeals along with Smt.
Laxmiben Shantilal Solanki (Mother-in-Law) who died during the
pendency of the present appeals, have challenged the impugned
judgment dated 03.09.2009 whereby the High Court has dismissed
the Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of 1999 preferred by the
appellants while allowing the Criminal Appeal No. 1259 of 1999
preferred by the State confirming the judgment of conviction
passed by the Trial Court and enhanced the sentence of the
appellants under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) from two years to five years
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
simple imprisonment.
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2026.04.06
17:13:15 IST
Reason:
2
2. All the four accused persons were convicted by the High
Court for the charge under Section 306 read with Section 114
and Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The
High Court enhanced the sentence from two years to five years
for the charge under Section 306 IPC maintaining the sentence
for other offences as directed by the Trial Court. It is not
out of place to mention that the Trial Court though convicted
the accused persons for the charges under sections 3 &4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 504 of IPC, but for
the major offence of Section 306 of the IPC, punishment of two
years was directed. The said conviction and sentence was
challenged by the accused persons asking acquittal and by the
State for enhancement of sentence which was directed by the
Trial Court as indicated hereinabove.
2. Mr. Sidharth Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing
for the accused persons, strenuously urged that if we see the
entire prosecution case, on the face of it, it is revealed
that the prosecution prima facie make out an allegation of
accidental death to an accident took place on 10.09.1998 at
the time of preparing the breakfast, the deceased met with
burn injuries on account of leakage of the gas pipe line.
3
Therefore, the initial case of the prosecution was not based
either on a dowry death or of committing suicide. Referring
the charges as framed by the Court, it is urged that in the
manner in which charges have been framed by the Court is also
very surprising as it is premised upon the story of committing
suicide by the deceased.
Taking us through the findings of the Trial Court
recorded while relying upon the evidence of PW-9, Dr.
Vijaysing Narpatsing, it is urged that such finding is only
with respect to the death of the deceased Reshma in other than
normal circumstances because of burn injuries and doesn’t in
any manner relate to the offence of abetment to suicide.
Since all the accused have been convicted for the charge under
Section 306 of the IPC, such evidence couldn’t have been
relied upon. He further emphasizes that the case of the
prosecution supported by the testimony of PW-10, Assistant
Commissioner of Police who specifically stated that they
exhibited the report of the Forensic Laboratory (P-32) wherein
it has not been specified that there is any sprinkle of the
kerosene or the smell of kerosene was present on the spot.
Considering all these aspects, it is urged by him that the
conviction even for the charge under Sections 306 read with
4
Section 114 and Section 498 of the IPC is not justified.
In the alternative, it is contended by him that the
incident is of 10.09.1998 and by this time, more than 27 years
have already elapsed. All the appellants have had some
rendezvous with jail life. It is said that Appellant No.1
(husband) has served more than one year of sentence, Appellant
No.3 (Jethani) has served about 15-20 days and the Appellant
No.4 (Jeth) has served about four months. Considering this
aspect and the fact that now they have settled in their family
life, in the peculiar fact situation, as argued on merit, it
is urged that for the charge under Section 306 of the IPC, no
minimum sentence has been prescribed. Similar is the position
under Section 498A. Therefore, looking to the said situation,
this appeal may be disposed of modifying the sentence part to
the extent already undergone by the appellant Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
Appellant No. 2 has already died. Therefore, appeal against
her stood abated vide order dated 16.04.2018.
4. Per contra, Ms Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel
representing the State, made an attempt to justify the
findings as recorded by the Trial Court as well as by the High
Court and submits that the conviction as directed to the
5
appellants do not warrant any interference. However, on the
point of alternative prayer, learned counsel urged that
looking to the time gap, this Court may take a view as deemed
fit.
5. Having considered the submissions made, and without
expressing any opinion on the prosecution’s case or the
findings recorded by the Trial Court as confirmed by the High
Court on the question of conviction, it is suffice to note
that given the extraordinary passage of more than 27 years
since the commission of the offence, this Court is of the view
that it would not be appropriate to examine the matter on
merits at this stage. In the peculiar facts and circumstances,
we are inclined to accept the alternative prayer made by the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, while
maintaining the conviction, we direct that the sentence
already undergone by the appellants shall be treated as the
sentence imposed, and no further incarceration shall be
required.
6. Considering the aforesaid, we allow these appeals in
part. The conviction as directed by the High Court is not
interfered with while the sentence is reduced to the sentence
6
already undergone by the appellants. The appellants are on
bail. They need not surrender. However, their bail bonds
stand discharged. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
…………………………………………………,J.
[J.K. MAHESHWARI]
…………………………………………………,J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
New Delhi;
March 12, 2026.
7
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 3-4/2010
INDRAVADAN @ ISHWAR SHANTILAL S. & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondent(s)
Date : 12-03-2026 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sidharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala, AOR
Mr. Aditya Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Aarushi Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Sidhant Saraswat, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Singh Rawat, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are allowed in part in terms of the signed
order. The conviction as directed by the High Court is not
interfered with while the sentence is reduced to the sentence
already undergone by the appellants. The appellants are on bail.
They need not surrender. However, their bail bonds stand
discharged. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (NAND KISHOR)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)