Holding

The appellate court affirmed the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the Sessions Court’s view was a possible conclusion.

Summary

The State of Gujarat appealed the acquittal of four accused who were charged with murder, dowry death and related offences after the deceased Rasilaben was found strangled in a farm shed. The prosecution presented medical evidence confirming homicidal death by strangulation and alleged that the accused had subjected the victim to mental cruelty and dowry harassment. However, key witnesses, including close relatives of the deceased, turned hostile and rescinded their earlier statements, leaving the prosecution’s case on motive and dowry demand unsupported. The High Court held that the evidence was unreliable and insufficient to prove the offences under Sections 498‑A and 304‑B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Relying on the double presumption of innocence and established appellate principles, the Court affirmed the Sessions Court’s acquittal and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the acquittal of the accused can be set aside on appeal under Section 378 CrPC.
Whether the prosecution proved the elements of dowry death under Section 304‑B IPC and cruelty under Section 498‑A IPC.
Whether the appellate court may overturn a trial court’s acquittal when two reasonable conclusions are possible.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedures. 378
Dowry Prohibition Acts. 2
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 302, s. 304-B, s. 34, s. 498-A

Subjects

dowry deathmurderacquittalappeal against acquittalburden of proofdouble presumptioncriminal procedureevidence reliability

Judgment

R/CR.A/1018/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/01/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1018 of 2003

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No

=========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GOVINDBHAI MAVJIBHAI CHOVATIYA & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance:
MR J K SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MITUL J ACHARYA(9848) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 2,3,4
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 05/01/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatis7ed with the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 08.05.2003 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions
Case No. 133 of 2001 for the oAences punishable under Sections
498-A, 302, 304-B, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section
2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the appellant – State of Gujarat has
preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).

Page 1 of 10
R/CR.A/1018/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/01/2026

2. The brief facts leading to the 7ling of the present appeal are
as under:

2.1. As per the prosecution case, the marriage of the deceased
Rasilaben had taken place only three months prior to the incident
with accused No. 2 Prakash alias Babo Govindbhai Chovatiya.
During this short married life, all the four accused, along with
juvenile accused Nitaben, taunted the deceased regarding
household work, cooking and not bringing dowry, thereby
subjecting her to mental cruelty. On 24.08.2001, in the farm shed
owned by the accused at village Kharchiya, all the accused
strangled Rasilaben with a cotton rope causing her death. To
conceal the homicide, accused No. 1 Govindbhai Mavjibhai inGicted
six injuries resembling snake bites on the area between the big toe
and ankle of the right foot of the deceased using an iron needle and
placed a handkerchief over her mouth to hide the ligature marks on
the neck, falsely projecting the death as one due to snake bite.

2.2. Accordingly, FIR being Jasdan Police Station came to be
registered for the aforesaid oAences. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was 7led before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Jasdan, and the case was committed to the
Sessions Court, Rajkot where it was registered as the present
Sessions Case.

3. On conclusion of evidence, the Sessions Court put various
incriminating circumstances to the respondents-accused under
Section 313 of the Code. The respondents-accused denied all
allegations and claimed to be innocent. After hearing both sides,
the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-accused.

Page 2 of 10
R/CR.A/1018/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/01/2026

4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced
before the Sessions Court.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
impugned order of acquittal is required to be set aside because the
medical evidence conclusively proves homicidal death by
strangulation, the deceased died within three months of marriage
under unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home, and the
prosecution witnesses, though partly resiling from their police
statements, had consistently narrated dowry-related harassment
and the attempt to pass oA the murder as snake bite. He therefore
prays for allowing the appeal.

6. The incident took place on 24.08.2001 in the farm shed at
village Kharchiya belonging to the accused persons. The deceased
was living in a joint family with all four accused. The father of the
deceased reached the spot soon after being informed and noticed
ligature marks on the neck covered by a handkerchief as well as
arti7cial injuries on the foot. The only persons who had access to
the deceased at the relevant time were the four accused and the
juvenile accused Nitaben. The complainant and several close
relatives, though declared hostile by the sessions court, had in their
police statements clearly narrated repeated demands for groceries,
taunts regarding household work and cooking, and threats that if
demands were not met another marriage would be arranged.
Despite the witnesses resiling in Court, the prosecution evidence,
when read with the undisputed medical evidence and the short
duration of marriage, suAiciently establishes cruelty, dowry death
and homicide by strangulation. The attempt to fabricate snake bite

Page 3 of 10
R/CR.A/1018/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/01/2026

and the conduct of the accused in hurrying for last rites without
informing the police further strengthen the prosecution case.

7. At the outset, evidence of PW-2 – Gokalbhai Ratnabhai
Thumar, the complainant and father of the deceased, examined at
Exh.19 is required to be seen. The said witness has deposed in his
testimony about the occurrence of the death of his daughter
Rasilaben. He has deposed that the marriage of Rasilaben had
taken place only three months prior and whenever she visited her
parental home, she complained of harassment by the accused
persons regarding household work, cooking and not bringing
dowry. This witness has further deposed that on 24.08.2001, he
received information about Rasilaben being bitten by an animal and
upon reaching the matrimonial home at Kharchiya, he found her
body with a towel covering the neck. Upon removal of the towel,
ligature marks were visible on the neck and arti7cial injuries
resembling snake bite were noticed on the right foot. This witness
has identi7ed the muddamal articles such as towel, rope and iron
needle. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence,
however nothing substantial showing the non-involvement of the
accused persons in the crime or disproving the harassment has
come on record from the evidence of this witness. However, during
the cross-examination, certain omissions and contradictions in
relation to the exact complaints made by the deceased, the
sequence of events upon reaching the spot, and the statements
made by accused No.1 regarding suicide surfaced in consonance
with the medical evidence and other witnesses, and therefore the
evidence of the complainant comes under the shadow of doubt.

8. PW-8 – Jamkuben Gokalbhai, mother of the deceased,

Page 4 of 10
R/CR.A/1018/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/01/2026

examined at Exh.64, has deposed that during Rasilaben's visits to
the parental home, she personally heard her daughter complaining
about taunts from the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law regarding
cooking and household work, and that the in-laws used to say
things like "if demands are not met, another marriage will be
arranged". However, in cross-examination, she has admitted that
these complaints were general in nature and not speci7cally about
dowry or monetary demands. She has resiled from the details given
in her police statement regarding physical harassment or repeated
demands for dowry. She has conceded that she advised her
daughter to adjust and that things would improve with time. She
has denied seeing any visible injury on the deceased during visits.
This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution as her
testimony materially dilutes the severity and frequency of
harassment alleged in the FIR.

9. PW-6 – Haresh Gokalbhai, brother of the deceased, examined
at Exh.61, initially stated in examination-in-chief that his sister
used to con7de in him about mental torture by the accused family
over small household issues. However, in cross-examination, he has
admitted that he never personally witnessed any such incident and
his knowledge was only hearsay from the deceased. He has resiled
from his police statement wherein speci7c instances of taunts and
threats of second marriage were mentioned. He has stated that the
deceased appeared normal during visits and never expressed fear
of life. He has been declared hostile as he failed to support the
prosecution's case on cruelty linked to dowry demands.

10. PW-7 – Nirmalaben Parsotambhai, PW-9 – Nirmalaben
Hareshbhai, PW-10 – Champaben Jayantibhai, and other close

Page 5 of 10
R/CR.A/1018/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/01/2026

female relatives of the deceased have been examined. These
witnesses, being from the parental side, had opportunities to
interact with the deceased during her visits. In their police
statements, they had supported allegations of repeated mental
harassment and demands for dowry. However, in court, all of them
have turned hostile and stated that the deceased never complained
of serious cruelty or dowry demands, but only minor adjustments
issues common in new marriages. They have denied hearing any
threats like "if the mother dies, we will marry another" and have
stated that the deceased was treated well. Their cross-examination
by the prosecution has not yielded any material support to the
allegations in the FIR.

11. PW-11 – Mansukhbhai Savjibhai, the village sarpanch who
accompanied the complainant to the spot, examined at Exh.67, has
deposed that accused No.1 informed him about snake bite but later
admitted it was suicide to avoid police trouble. However, in cross-
examination, he has clari7ed that this conversation was brief and
he did not probe further. He has not supported any prior
knowledge of dowry harassment or cruelty towards the deceased.

12. From the evidence of the aforesaid close relatives and the
sarpanch, it is evident that while some general complaints about
adjustment in joint family were made by the deceased during visits,
none of the witnesses have consistently supported speci7c
allegations of systematic cruelty, physical torture, or harassment
linked to dowry demands. Most key witnesses from the parental
side have resiled from their police statements and have been
declared hostile, signi7cantly weakening the prosecution case on
Sections 498-A and 304-B.

Page 6 of 10
R/CR.A/1018/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/01/2026

13. PW-5 – Police Inspector Sukhdevsinh Hanubha Zala, the
Investigating OAicer, examined at Exh.48, has deposed about
recording statements of these relatives wherein allegations of
cruelty were mentioned. However, he has admitted in cross-
examination that no independent neighbours or villagers were
examined to corroborate ongoing harassment at the matrimonial
home. He has further admitted that before adding Section 302, no
further statements of these witnesses were recorded to clarify the
initial version of suicide conveyed by accused No.1. This omission
has allowed material improvements and contradictions to remain
unexplained, further eroding the reliability of the oral evidence on
motive and cruelty.

14. Thus, the only evidence in support of the prosecution case
rests primarily on the testimonies of close relatives of the
deceased, which suAer from serious in7rmities, including material
contradictions, omissions, resiling from police statements, and
declaration of key witnesses as hostile. Most witnesses have diluted
or denied speci7c allegations of systematic cruelty or harassment
linked to dowry demands, restricting the complaints to general
adjustment issues common in matrimonial life. In such
circumstances, the Sessions Court rightly held that it is not safe to
convict the accused on the basis of such unreliable and inconsistent
evidence. The medical evidence establishes homicidal death by
strangulation and the attempt to fabricate a snake bite scenario,
but the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt
the motive of cruelty or harassment soon before the death in
connection with dowry demands, as required for oAences under
Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. In the absence of reliable
corroboration and in view of the glaring in7rmities pointed out by
the Sessions Court, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is

Page 7 of 10
R/CR.A/1018/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/01/2026

not only a possible view but the only reasonable view on the
evidence on record.

15. It is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal there is a
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence available under fundamental principles
of criminal jurisprudence, and secondly, such presumption is
further reinforced and strengthened by the order of acquittal
passed by the sessions Court. Unless the 7ndings of the Sessions
Court are shown to be perverse or manifestly erroneous, the
appellate Court will not interfere merely because another view is
possible.

16. At this stage, this Court may refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of
Bihar and Another [(2022) 3 SCC 471] encapsulated the legal
position covering the 7eld after considering various earlier
judgments and held as below: -

“29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court
culled out the following general principles regarding the
powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal
against an order acquittal in the following words:
(Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007)
4 SCC 415]

“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an
order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded.

(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation,

Page 8 of 10
R/CR.A/1018/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/01/2026

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 su4icient 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 “5ourishes of
language” to emphasise 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,
rea4irmed 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 7nding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

17. In the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
[(2023) 9 SCC 581] the Hon’ble Apex Court has summarized the
principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC
as follows: -

“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal,
is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against

Page 9 of 10
R/CR.A/1018/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/01/2026

acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider
whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which
could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot
overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view
was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal
only if it comes to a 7nding that the only conclusion which can be
recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt
of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible.”

18. In the light of the above discussion and the settled legal
position, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
respondents-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned
judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.05.2003 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajkot in
Sessions Case No. 133 of 2001 does not call for any interference.

19. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
The judgment and order of acquittal is con7rmed. Records and
Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Kaushal Rathod
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/01/2026 17:09:28

Page 10 of 10