IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: GANDHINAGAR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
OF 2014
(Under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973)
Rakeshkumar Manubhai Parekh,
Male, Aged:
Residing at:
Pethapur,
District : Gandhinagar.
At present undergoing sentence as
Convict prisoner.

... Appellant
Orig.Accused-1
of Sessions
Case No.120/2011.

Versus
State of Gujarat
(Notice to be served through the Ld.
Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Gujarat, Sola-Ahmedabad.
...

Respondent

Criminal Appeal against the

Judgment and order passed
by 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Gandhinagar dated
04/07/2013 in Sessions
Case
No.120/2011
convicting
the
accused
appellant for the offence
punishable U/s. 498-A IPC
and
sentencing
the
appellant to undergo RI for
a term of 3 years with fine
of Rs.2000/- i.d SI for two
months
and
further
convicting under Section
306 of IPC and sentencing
the appellant to undergo RI

for 5 years with fine of

Rs.3000/- i.d. S.I. for three
months.
TO,
THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT
SOLA-AHMEDABAD.
THE HUMBLE APPEAL OF THE
APPELLANT ABOVE NAMED :

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT :

1. The accused-appellant herein and 2 other coaccused were tried in the Court of 2 nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar on the charges of
having committed offences punishable U/s.498-A
and 306 IPC. Vide Judgment and order dated
04/07/2013

the

accused-appellant

Trial

Court

herein

for

convicted
the

the

offence

punishable U/s. 498-A IPC and sentencing the

appellant to undergo RI for a term of 3 years
with fine of Rs.2000/- i.d S.I. for two months
and further convicting under Section 306 of IPC
and sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 5

years with fine of Rs.3000/- i.d. S.I. for three

months

2. Case

of

the

prosecution

in

brief

can

be

summarized as under :

2.1) Accused-appellant
Neetaben.

was

married

to

deceased

Before four years, out of the said

wedlock, they had a daughter aged 1 years

named Devana. The deceased was staying in the
joint family and the accused persons were giving
mental

and

physical

harassment

to

the

deceased. It was the further the case of the

complainant that, whenever the deceased used
to visit the house of the complainant, she used
to state that her in laws were instigating the
appellant and by doing that the appellant used to
beat her. One and half months before the
incident, the deceased and the appellant started
staying separately at Indroda village in a rented
house.

On

29/04/2011,

because

instigation from her in laws,

of

the

the appellant

physically harass the deceased and asked money

from her, which was paid by the complainant and

memorandum of understating was also entered

into on the same day. But then also, the
harassment continued and on 25/06/2011, the
deceased committed suicide by hanging herself
at village Sargasan. Based on the same, the FIR
came to be lodged at Gandhinagar Sector-7
Police Station which was registered as C. R. No.I220/2011 for offences punishable U/s.498A, 306,
114 IPC.

3. Charge-sheet was filed against the accusedappellant

and

other

co-accused

for

the

offences enumerated above and as Sec. 306 IPC

is exclusively triable by Sessions Court, the
Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar committed the
case

to

the

Court

of

Sessions

provisions of Sec.209 Cr.P.C.

under

the

On committal to

the Sessions Court at Gandhinagar, the case

came

to

be

registered

as

Sessions

Case

No.120/2011.

4. Vide Exh.9 Charge came to be framed against

the accused appellant by Additional Sessions
Judge, Gandhinagar, dated 18/04/2012.

5. During the course of trial, prosecution examined

the following witnesses.

Sr.No. Name of the witness

1
Dr.Bipin Motilal Patel, Medical Officer,
(who perform PM of the deceased)
2
Natwarbhai
Bababhai
Nayicomplainant.
3
Jivanbhai
Chhanabhai
Parmar
(Witness)
4
Devendrasinh Sobaransinh Bhadoriya,
Witness
5
Devchandbhai
Godadbhai
Panchal,
Panch Witness
6
Baldevbhai Rugnathbhai Rabari, Panch
Witness No.2
7
Natwarsinh
Punjaji
Rana
(Panch
Witness No.2)
8
Somabhai Bababhai Nayi, brother of
the complainant.
9
Vishnubhai Bababhai Nayi, brother of
the complainant.
10
Priyaben Devendrabhai Nayi, daughter
in law of the complainant.
11
Bhagwatsinh Kalusinh, PSO
12
Ranjitsinh Natwarsinh Vaghela, IO
13
Hirabhai Lalabhai Solanki, PSI
14
Dineshbhai Devjibhai Chaudhry IO
6. On

overall

appreciation

and

Exh.
13
22
26
27
28
33
34
37
38
39
42
47
52
55

evaluation

of

evidence on record the Trial Court came to the

conclusion that the prosecution has not been
able to prove the case in its entirety so far as the
other co-accused are concerned and accordingly
acquitted other co-accused Nos.2 & 3. However,

the Trial Court came to the conclusion that from

the evidence on record prosecution has been
able

to

prove

that

the

accused

appellant

convicting the accused appellant for the offence

punishable U/s. 498-A IPC and sentencing the
appellant to undergo RI for a term of 3 years
with fine of Rs.2000/- i.d SI for two months and
further convicting under Section 306 of IPC and
sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 5
years with fine of Rs.3000/- i.d. S.I. for three
months

7. Except this Appeal, the appellant-accused has

not filed any other appeal or application either in
this Honble Court or in any other Court or in the
Supreme Court of India against the impugned
order.

8.

Being

aggrieved

and

dissatisfied

with

the

judgment and order of conviction passed by the

2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, the
appellant herein begs to prefer this Appeal on
the following amongst other grounds :

: GROUNDS :

(1) The Judgment and order of conviction is

erroneous

in

law,

against

the

weight

of

evidence and contrary to the well settled

principles of criminal jurisprudence.

(2)

The Ld. Judge has failed to appreciate that

there was a delay in filing of the FIR by three
days and the complainant has not given any
explanation suggesting the same. Further, the
basis of convicting the accused appellant is
that he was habitual of alcohol, but the
prosecution

has

failed

to

produce

any

independent witness confirming the same or

showing by any documentary evidence that
any criminal complaint or any complaint has
been ever filed suggesting the same.

(3) That, the prosecution has failed to establish

any particular incident suggesting the mental
or

physical

harassment

towards

deceased

leading her to take such a drastic step. It is

pertinent to note that, none of the witness has

said anything that she was subject to any
cruelty prior to the
suicide.

The

Ld.

deceased

Judge

has

committing
relied

on

compromise agreement to suggest that the

deceased was subject to cruelty, but on the
contrary, the same will reflect that the accused
appellant wanted to have a good matrimonial
life

with

the

deceased

and

therefore

he

entered into compromise on the term of

deceased and brought her back to matrimonial
home.

(4) That, the said compromise agreement is of

dated

29/04/2011

and

the

deceased

committed suicide on 25/06/2011 and the

prosecution has not produced any evidence
suggesting that any cruelty or any instigation
was ever committed from the side of the
appellant to instigate deceased to commit
suicide,

and,

therefore,

conviction

Section 306 cannot be sustained.

under

(5) That, the deceased and the appellant was

staying separately in the rented premise, but
none of the independent witness has been
examined

and

only

the

relatives

or

the

interested witnesses have been examined by

the

prosecution,

witnesses

have

but
failed

even
to

the

interested

establish

that

particular incident which lead to taking such a

drastic step of committing suicide.
(6) That, Ld. Judge has relied on the compromise
agreement, dated 29/04/2011 in convicting
the accused appellant, but the same does not
hold any legality and validity in the eyes of law
and therefore conviction based on compromise
agreement is bad in law and deserves to be
quashed and set aside.

(7) The law in this regard has also been very well
explained by the Division Bench of this Honble
High Court in a reported decision in the matter
of State of Gujarat

Vs. Bharatbhai Lad

reported in 2006(1) GLR -514.

The Honble

Division Bench has taken the view that it is a

settled legal provision of law that for bringing

home the charge U/s.306 IPC there must be
some evidence adduced on record showing
that soon before the incident, there was some
harassment and torture to the deceased at the
hands of the accused.

Sec. 107 IPC is with

regard to the abetment and as per the

provision of this Section, there must be some
evidence that soon before the incident there
must be some incident due to which she was
prompted, instigated or abetted to commit
suicide. Before a person can be held guilty for
abetting
prosecution

commission
must

of

establish,

suicide,
by

the

cogent,

convincing and overwhelming evidence, that

the accused intended the consequences of the
act namely, suicide and abetting the suicide
within the meaning of Sec.107 IPC.

Mere

harassment or cruelty which drags the woman

to commit suicide is not sufficient to constitute
the offence U/s.306 IPC.

10

(8) The Judgment and order of conviction is

otherwise also erroneous in law and deserves
to be quashed and set aside.

9. The

appellant-accused

submits

that,

the

appellant has already paid fine.

10.

The appellant -accused, therefore, most

humbly prays that this Honble Court be pleased

to
(A) admit the present Appeal;
(B) quash and set aside the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Gandhinagar dt. 04/07/2013 in Sessions
Case No.120/2011;
(C) acquit and exonerate the accused appellant from
all the charges;
(D) pass such orders as thought fit.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE
APPELLANT SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

AHMEDABAD.
Dt.
/02/2014

(Hardik H. Dave)
Advocate for the Appellant

11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: GANDHINAGAR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
OF 2014
(Under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973)
Rakeshkumar Manubhai Parekh

Appellant

V/s.
State of Gujarat.

...

Respondent

: INDEX :
Annexure Particulars
Page No.
Memo of Appeal
1 to 12
nd
A
order passed by 2 Additional
Sessions

Judge,

Gandhinagar

dated 04/07/2013 in Sessions

Case No.120/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

12

DISTRICT: GANDHINAGAR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
OF 2014
(Under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973)
Rakeshkumar Manubhai Parekh

Appellant

V/s.
State of Gujarat.

...

Respondent

: LIST OF EVENTS :

- The accused-appellant herein and 2 other

co-accused were

tried in the Court of 2 nd

Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar on

the charges of having committed offences
punishable U/s.498-A and 306 IPC. Vide
Judgment and order dated 04/07/2013 the
Trial Court convicted the accused-appellant
herein for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A
IPC and sentencing the appellant to undergo
RI for a term of 3 years with fine of
Rs.2000/- i.d S.I. for two months and
further convicting under Section 306 of IPC
and sentencing the appellant to undergo RI
for 5 years with fine of Rs.3000/- i.d. S.I.
for three months
- Accused-appellant was married to deceased
Neetaben.

Before four years, out of the

said wedlock, they had a daughter aged 1

years named Devana. The deceased was

13

staying in the joint family and the accused

persons were giving mental and physical
harassment to the deceased.
- Whenever the deceased used to visit the
house of the complainant, she used to state
that

her

in

laws

were

instigating

the

appellant and by doing that the appellant

used to beat her.
- One and half months before the incident,
the deceased and the appellant started
staying separately at Indroda village in a
rented house.
- On 29/04/2011, because of the instigation
from her in laws, the appellant physically
harass the deceased and asked money from
her, which was paid by the complainant and
memorandum

of

understating

was

also

entered into on the same day.

- But then also, the harassment continued
and

on

25/06/2011,

the

deceased

committed suicide by hanging herself at

village Sargasan. Based on the same, the
FIR came to be lodged at Gandhinagar
Sector-7 Police Station which was registered
as

C.

R.

No.I-220/2011

for

punishable U/s.498A, 306, 114 IPC.

14

offences

- After filing of Charge-sheet the case was

committed

to

Gandhinagar,

the
the

Sessions
case

Court

came

to

at
be

registered as Sessions Case No.120/2011.

- Vide Exh.9 Charge came to be framed

against the accused appellant by Additional
Sessions

Judge,

Gandhinagar,

dated

18/04/2012.

On

overall

appreciation

and

evaluation

of

evidence on record the Trial Court came to the

conclusion that the prosecution has not been
able to prove the case in its entirety so far as the
other co-accused are concerned and accordingly
acquitted other co-accused Nos.2 & 3.
-

However, the Trial Court came to the conclusion

that from the evidence on record prosecution has
been able to prove that the accused appellant
convicting the accused appellant for the offence
punishable U/s. 498-A IPC and sentencing the
appellant to undergo RI for a term of 3 years
with fine of Rs.2000/- i.d SI for two months and
further convicting under Section 306 of IPC and
sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 5
years with fine of Rs.3000/- i.d. S.I. for three
months.

HENCE THIS APPEAL.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

15

DISTRICT: GANDHINAGAR.
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.

OF 2014

IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
OF 2014
(Under Sec. 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973)
Rakeshkumar Manubhai Parekh,
Male, Aged:
Residing at:
Pethapur,
District : Gandhinagar.
At present undergoing sentence as
Convict prisoner.

... Applicant
Orig.Accused-1
of Sessions
Case No.120/2011.

Versus
State of Gujarat
(Notice to be served through the Ld.
Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Gujarat, Sola-Ahmedabad.
...

Respondent

Application U/s.389 of
Cr.P.C.,1973
for
suspension
of
substantive
order
of
sentence imposed by the
the judgment and order
of conviction passed by
2nd
Additional
Sessions
Judge, Gandhinagar dated
04/07/2013 in Sessions
Case
No.120/2011
convicting
the
accused
appellant for the offence
punishable U/s. 498-A and
306 of the IPC.

16

TO,
THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT
SOLA-AHMEDABAD.
THE HUMBLE APPEAL OF THE
APPELLANT ABOVE NAMED :

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT :

1. The accused applicant was convicted by the

Trial Court herein for the offence punishable U/s.
498-A IPC and sentencing the appellant to
undergo RI for a term of 3 years with fine of
Rs.2000/- i.d S.I. for two months and further
convicting

under

Section

306

of

IPC

and

sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 5

years with fine of Rs.3000/- i.d. S.I. for three
months in Sessions Case No.120/2011.
2. The

accused-applicant

substantive

Appeal

by

has

preferred

raising

manifold

grounds, before the Honble Court against

the judgment and order of his conviction
and sentence dated 04/07/2013 passed by
the

learned

2nd

Addl.

17

Sessions

Judge,

Gandhinagar,

in

Sessions

Case

No.120/2011.

3. Having regard to the evidence on record

the judgment and order of conviction is
erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of
law.
years.
take

The sentence imposed is R.I. for 5

It is submitted that the appeal will
considerable

long

period

of

time

before it is taken-up for hearing and final

disposal and therefore, pending the final
disposal of the main Appeal substantive
order

of

sentence

imposed

by

the

Trial

Court deserves to be suspended and the

accused-applicant
released

on

be

bail

ordered

subject

to

to

be

terms

and

conditions which this Honble Court may

deem fit to impose.

4. The applicant accused says and submits

that fine is paid by the accused-applicant
and from the date of arrest of the applicant
the applicant is in judicial custody and at

18

present he is undergoing sentence as a

convict prisoner.

5. The applicant accused craves leave of this

Honble Court to refer to and rely upon the
facts and grounds set-out in his criminal
appeal and the applicant accused is very
hopeful that he will succeed in criminal
appeal and the order of conviction and
sentence

passed

against

him

would

be

quashed and set aside.

6. The accused-applicant is in jail since his

conviction on 16/07/2011 and since the
appeal

might

not

be

taken-up

for

considerable period of time, the present

applicant may be released on bail and the
substantive

order

of

sentence

may

be

suspended till the disposal of the captioned

appeal.

7. Except

this

application

has

application,
been

no

preferred

other
by

the

applicant to this Honble Court against the

19

impugned judgment and order of conviction

and sentence.

8. The applicant-accused craves leave of this

Honble Court to add, amend, alter, delete
or rescind any of the grounds stated in this
application.

9. The

applicant-

accused

therefore,

most

humbly begs to pray that

A)

pending admission and/or final disposal of

the main Criminal Appeal, the substantive

order of sentence imposed upon the accusedapplicant by the learned 2 n d Addl. Sessions
Judge,

Gandhinagar,

Sessions

Case

dated

No.120/2011

04/07/2013
be

in

suspended

and the accused-applicant be ordered to be

released
conditions

on

bail

which

subject
this

to

terms

and

Honble

Court

may

jail,

the

deem fit to impose;

B)

as

the

accused-applicant

affidavit be dispensed with;

20

in

C)

pass such orders as thought fit.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE

THE APPLICANT SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND,
EVER PRAY.
AHMEDABAD.
Date:

/02/2014

..
(Hardik H. Dave)
Advocate for the Applicant

21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: GANDHINAGAR.
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.
OF 2014
( Under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. )
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Rakeshkumar Manubhai Parekh,
Male, Aged:
Residing at:
Pethapur,
District : Gandhinagar.
At present undergoing sentence as
Convict prisoner.

OF 2014

... Applicant
Orig.Accused-1
of Sessions
Case No.120/2011.

Versus
State of Gujarat
(Notice to be served through the Ld.
Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Gujarat, Sola-Ahmedabad.
...

Respondent

Application for condonation

of
delay
in
preferring
Appeal
against
the
judgment and order of
conviction passed by 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gandhinagar
dated
04/07/2013 in Sessions
Case
No.120/2011
convicting
the
accused
appellant for the offence
punishable U/s. 498-A and
306 of the IPC.

22

TO,
THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT
SOLA-AHMEDABAD.
THE HUMBLE APPEAL OF THE
APPELLANT ABOVE NAMED :

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT :

1. The accused applicant was convicted by the

Trial Court herein for the offence punishable U/s.
498-A IPC and sentencing the appellant to
undergo RI for a term of 3 years with fine of
Rs.2000/- i.d S.I. for two months and further
convicting

under

Section

306

of

IPC

and

sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 5

years with fine of Rs.3000/- i.d. S.I. for three
months in Sessions Case No.120/2011.

2. The

accused-applicant

substantive

Appeal

by

has

preferred

raising

manifold

grounds, before the Honble Court against

the judgment and order of his conviction
and sentence dated 04/07/2013 passed by
the

learned

2nd

Addl.

23

Sessions

Judge,

Gandhinagar,

in

Sessions

Case

No.120/2011.

3. The applicant hails from a very lower strata of

society.

There is no body in the family except

the applicant.

On account of acute monetary

constraints and other problems the accused

applicant was unable to prefer Criminal Appeal
within the period of limitation and because of
monetary constraints the appeal could not be
preferred in time and there is a delay in
preferring the same.

4. The delay has occasioned on account of a

genuine problem and not due to any negligence
or carelessness of the accused-applicant.

5. The delay of ___ days in preferring the Appeal

deserves to be condoned in the interest of
justice.

6. The accused-applicant right from the date of

incident is in jail and there is nobody in the
family except mother.

24

7. Except this, no other application has been

preferred by the applicant in this Honble Court
or any other Court on the subject matter.

8. The applicant therefore, most humbly prays that

this Honble Court be pleased to

A)

condone

delay

of

____

days

in

preferring

Criminal Appeal against judgment and order

passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge
Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.120/2011;

B)

pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of

justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE

APPLICANT SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

AHMEDABAD.
Date:

/02/2014

..
(Hardik H. Dave)
Advocate for the Applicant

25