Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rekhaben Chamanbhai Mangabhai Patani on 22 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2418 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
REKHABEN CHAMANBHAI MANGABHAI PATANI & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
2,3
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MS.FALGUNI D.TRIVEDI(3912) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,3
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 22/07/2026
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 26.06.2009 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Fast Track
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
Court no.2, Bhadra, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as “the
trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.324 of 2007, whereby the trial Court
has acquitted the original accused (respondents herein) from the
offences punishable under Section 306 r/w. Section 114 etc of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant –
Govindbhai Patani was residing with his family at Vasantnagar
Chhapara, Behind Dhanlaxmi Complex, Thakkarbapanagar. It is
alleged that Chamanbhai @ Vikram (deceased) S/o. complainant was
married with accused No.1 in December 2006 and after the marriage,
they were residing separately at Kalapinagar, Brahman Vas and
accused No.2 and 3 were the brother-in-laws of deceased. It is further
alleged that all the accused had subjected to mental and physical
harassment to deceased and also beaten him and the neighbours of
deceased informed him that accused No.1 was having illicit relation
with one person, for which, deceased gave warning to her and,
therefore, the quarrel took place between accused No.2 and 3 and the
deceased. It is also alleged that all the accused had subjected mental
and physical harassment to the deceased and beaten him and,
therefore, the deceased had committed suicide by hanging himself
with ceiling fan. Hence, a complaint being C.R. No.19/2007 was
lodged by the complainant before Meghaninagar Police 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 4 for the aforesaid offences against the accused.
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
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
Additional Sessions Judge.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the witnesses and in addition to this, the
prosecution has also produced the following 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 are 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 Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat and Ms.Falguni Trivedi, learned
counsel for the respondents – accused at length. The respondents
No.1 and 3 represented by Ms.Trivedi, learned counsel and upon
request of the Court, she is ready and willing to appear on behalf of
respondent No.2 since he is one of the family members.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
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. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor 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. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor 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
the witnesses.
8.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that
the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the evidence on
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
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. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant has
submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of
P.W.1 Dr. Gautam Vrajlal Nayak (Exhibit 10), who has specifically
stated that the injuries were possible by strangulate of throat and this
witness has supported the case of the prosecution. Learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the appellant has also submitted that the
prosecution examined P.W.2 Govindbhai Rajanbhai Patani, P.W.5
Haresh Govindbhai Patani, P.W.6 Hansaben Bharatbhai Patani, P.W.7
Kankuben Pravinbhai Patani, P.W.8 Dadamben Mahendrabhai Patani
and P.W.9 Gitaben Naginbhai Patani, P.W.10 Udesinh Gumansinh
Thakor and P.W.11 Nagbha Jambha Rana, however, the trial Court has
discarded and disbelieved the evidence of these witnesses. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the
prosecution has examined the panch witnesses i.e. P.W.3 Shardaben
Vithalbhhai Patani and P.W.4 Vithalbhai Shakarabhai Patani, who
supported the case of prosecution, despite this fact, the trial Court
has not considered the evidence of these witnesses and declared
hostile. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that
some of the witnesses turned hostile is not a ground for acquittal in
view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
Sheikh Zakhi Vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 10 wherein it has been
held that it is not quite strange that some witnesses to turn hostile
but that by itself would not prevent a Court from finding true and
accused quality if there, otherwise, acceptable evidence in support of
the prosecution. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has tried to
canvass the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
trial Court is erroneous, illegal and unjust and the same deserves to
be quashed and set aside.
8.3 According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court
ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed
necessary sentence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed
to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal.
9. Per contra, 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.
Learned counsel for the respondents – accused 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. Learned counsel for the
respondent/s has also submitted that there is no iota of evidence to
connect the accused with the alleged crime in question. Learned
counsel for the 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
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
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. It is
submitted that 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.
9.1 Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
prosecution has not satisfactorily proved the fact that there was any
harassment caused to the deceased by the accused and the
prosecution has also not proved the fact that there was any ill-
treatment or cruelty meted out to the deceased at the hands of
accused No.1.
12. 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 has rightly justified in passing the
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
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 and perversity in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
13. Looking to the facts of the case, it appears that deceased
married with accused No.1 before about one year of the accident
somewhere in December 2006 and after marriage with accused No.1,
the deceased was residing separately with accused No.1. It is alleged
against the accused that after marriage, accused No.1 had an illicit
relationship and talking with some unknown person on telephone and
on account of that the quarrel took place between the husband and
wife and she was also not providing food to the deceased, whereas,
mother and two brothers of accused No.1 were supporting her and,
therefore, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself on fan.
It is the case of the prosecution that though this fact narrated before
the Investigating Officer, however, he had not accepted and declined
to register the FIR against the accused and, therefore, the
complainant constrained to move before the trial Court by way of
filing private complaint and the same was registered as M. Case
No.7/2007 and on the basis of the private complaint, the investigation
was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer, who found
sufficient material against the accused, filed the charge-sheet against
the accused. It is further the case of the prosecution that the
deceased was working as a labourer in diamond factory, where, his
brother (P.W.5) was also working with him and they both worked
together in the same factory. That on account of harassment and
cruelty meted out at the hands of accused No.1 and accused No.1 was
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
also not providing food to the deceased and always talking with some
unknown person on mobile phone, the deceased was suspecting the
character of accused No.1 and ultimately, on 22.05.2007, the
deceased had committed suicide by hanging himself. On perusal of
the material on record, it appears that the case against the accused is
that they have instigated and abetted in the crime in question and on
account of that the deceased had committed suicide and accused
including the mother of accused No.1, 3 and 4 originally joined as
accused No.2, but during the pendency of the trial and framing of the
charge, she passed away and, therefore, the charge against her was
not framed and except the said accused, the present respondents –
accused are facing charge under Sections 306, 114 of the IPC.
14. Now, looking to the oral as well as documentary evidence led by
the prosecution more particularly the evidence of father who alleged
that since deceased married with accused No.2 and started to reside
separately, he was harassed by accused No.1 having bad character
and, therefore, the quarrel took place between deceased and accused
No.1. Initially, father of the deceased alleged that the deceased was
killed by accused by causing injuries. In view of such allegation, this
Court peruses the evidence of the doctor (P.W.1) who performed the
postmortem of the deceased, it appears that he had not found any
injury mark on the body of the deceased, except ligature mark found
on the neck of the deceased and no other injury found by P.W.1 and
hence, the allegation made by the complainant is falsified by the
medical evidence.
15. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5, it
appears that there was no whisper about the allegation qua the bad
character of accused No.1 having base as it was alleged that she was
Page 9 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
always talking with someone else on mobile phone. It emerges from
the record that during the course of the investigation, neither mobile
phone was found from accused No.1 nor there was telephone
connection obtained by accused No.1 in her name nor there was
telephone record made available during the course of the
investigation. Considering the facts narrated by P.W.5, who
accompanied to the deceased, while they were working together, he
has not stated anything with regard to ill-treatment or harassment
meted out to the deceased and the deceased had never stated about
any ill-treatment and harassment caused by accused No.1. So far as
the ingredients of Sections 306, 114 of the IPC are concerned, the
evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 is not supported and no
such ingredients under Section 306, 114 of the IPC is satisfied. It is
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangula
Mohan Reddy Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750
and in subsequent decisions that there was direct nexus with the
instigation or abetment which provide to the deceased for taking such
extreme steps by killing herself or himself and unless and until it is
proved that there was any direct nexus with the step taken by the
deceased, it is not a case of charge under Section 306, 114 of the IPC
is tenable against the accused. In light of the facts of the case and as
observed by the trial Court in para 24 of the judgment and order, the
trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal and acquitted the accused. 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 there is no any
illegality and infirmity found in the judgment and order.
14. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
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.
15. 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.
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
16. 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 in the case of 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.
17. 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 itPage 12 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
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
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.”
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2418/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
undefined
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
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.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 00:52:58 IST 2026
