Petty Family Quarrel Not Dowry Harassment | Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband’s Acquittal In Abetment Case | Court Finds No Evidence Of Cruelty In Wife’s Self-Immolation
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gujarat Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice D.M. Vyas dismissed the State's criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of three accused persons in a case involving alleged dowry death. The Court, upon thorough reappraisal of evidence and judicial records, concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B, and 114 of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court confirmed the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court and observed that the appeal did not warrant interference.
The case involved the alleged suicide of Ms. Harshaben, legally wedded wife of accused no.1, approximately four years after their marriage. The couple had a son aged about one and a half years and the deceased was two months pregnant at the time of her death. The prosecution's case alleged that accused no.1 (husband), accused no.2 (father-in-law), and accused no.3 (mother-in-law) subjected the deceased to harassment over dowry demands, culminating in her suicide on 24.10.2013.
According to the prosecution, a quarrel occurred between the deceased and her mother-in-law over food, following which the deceased allegedly poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze around 11 a.m. Her mother and brother (PWs 1 and 5) along with her husband took her to Vankaner Hospital. She was referred to Rajkot Government Hospital, where she succumbed to injuries by 5 p.m. the same day. An Executive Magistrate (PW-8) recorded the deceased's statement around 3.45 p.m., wherein she attributed the harassment to her husband and mother-in-law.
On 25.10.2013, the deceased's mother (PW-1) lodged an FIR. The police registered offences under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B, and 114 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Morbi, where charges were framed accordingly.
During the trial, ten witnesses were examined and eighteen documentary exhibits were produced. However, key prosecution witnesses including PWs 1 to 5, all closely related to the deceased, turned hostile and did not support the dowry-related allegations. The Sessions Court found the accused not guilty and acquitted them on 28.05.2014.
The State of Gujarat filed the present appeal in 2014. Despite notices being served, the respondents-accused remained unrepresented during the appeal hearing. On 23.06.2025, the matter was adjourned to ensure fair opportunity, but none appeared for the respondents. The Court proceeded to adjudicate the matter on merits.
The Court extensively reviewed the statutory requirements under Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. It "makes it manifest that the prosecution has to invariably prove that there was cruelty or harassment caused to the woman within seven years of her marriage and, more particularly, that the said cruelty or harassment was caused for or in connection with any demand for dowry."
The Court noted that although PW-1 stated in the FIR that the deceased was harassed over dowry demands, "she did not support the said prosecution version in her evidence given in the Court. In fact, she has turned hostile." Similar positions were observed from the depositions of PW-2 to PW-5.
"There is absolutely not even an iota of evidence on record to prove that the accused made any illegal demand for dowry or that they have subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any such demand for dowry."
The Bench scrutinised the deceased's dying declaration recorded by PW-8. "She stated... that there was a quarrel between her and her mother-in-law... relating to the food prepared and she went to her room and poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze." The deceased also mentioned that her husband beat her the night before at the instance of her mother-in-law. However, the Court found: "She did not say in her dying declaration that the accused demanded any dowry from her... Therefore, the predominant requirement... is not established even from her dying declaration."
With respect to the charge under Section 306 IPC, the Court stated: "It is not a case where any of the accused has abetted her to commit suicide." The facts, in the Court’s view, did not satisfy the statutory criteria under Section 107 IPC. Even the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act was held inapplicable, as the necessary elements of cruelty were absent.
"Every petty instance and family bickering’s, which are common in any family life, cannot be construed as harassment made in connection with demand for dowry."
The Court clarified that the explanation to Section 498-A IPC also remained unfulfilled. "No such wilful conduct of such kind exhibited by the accused is established in this case."
The Court concluded that: "The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same arrived at a right conclusion and recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused."
The Bench further stated: "Upon considering the evidence and on reappraisal of the same, we also found that no case is made out for any of the charges levelled against the accused and that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under the law."
"So, it calls for no interference in this appeal. Ergo, the appeal is liable to be dismissed."
The final operative part of the judgment read: "Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 28.5.2014 rendered in Sessions Case No.8 of 2014 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi, acquitting the respondents-accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Bhargav Pandya, Additional Public Prosecutor
For the Respondents: None appeared despite notice of rule
Case Title: State of Gujarat vs. Paresh Shantilal & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: GUJHC:33892-DB
Case Number: R/CR. A/1029/2014
Bench: Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice D. M. Vyas
