LexPATEL BABUBHAI MANOHARDAS & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 432 : 2025 INSC 322 Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. 1388 of 2014) 05 March 2025 [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The four appellants were convicted by the Trial Court u/ss.306 and 114 of Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the conviction and sentence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306 and 114 – Victim-deceased died by consuming poison – It was alleged that one cleaning worker in his office had trapped him in a love scandal – A note was found from the pocket of deceased stating that the said cleaning worker and her family members were blackmailing victim after taking various photographs and videos of him in compromising position – FIR was lodged – Trial Court convicted the four appellants u/ss.306 and 114 of Penal Code, 1860 – The conviction was confirmed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: On perusal of evidence of record, it would reveal that the incident had occurred on 25.04.2009 and the complaint was filed 14.05.2009 – There is an unexplained delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR – There are significant inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the occurrence – PW-2 stated in her substantive evidence that when she reached her house she saw dead body of her husband (deceased) – However, in her cross-examination, she stated that when she reached home relatives had already taken her husband to hospital – When the panchnama was drawn on 25.04.2009, no note was found * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 433 Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat on the body of the deceased – PW-2 stated that from the time of death till the lodging of complaint, the suicide note was with PW-7 – This cast serious aspersions about the credibility of the suicide note – PW-6 stated that his niece told him about his brother-deceased, then he went to the house of deceased and at that time PW-7 was also present there – On the other hand, PW-7 stated that his brother PW-6 came to his house and told him about deceased and thereafter he rushed to deceased’s house – Such inconsistencies clearly impeach the credibility of the prosecution witnesses – Nothing is placed on record to show recovery of any jewellery (ornaments) by the police from the accused persons – No signed cheques of the deceased or cheque book or passbook of the deceased were recovered and exhibited in court – Therefore, the very sub-stratum of the prosecution case that the accused persons were making illegal gain by blackmailing the deceased falls flat – Further, there is no recovery of any trace of the poison consumed by the deceased at the place of occurrence – Also, the prosecution did not examine the Deputy Chief Handwriting Expert as an expert witness – The records also do not indicate that the accused had admitted genuineness of the report of the handwriting expert – Finally, even if the suicide note is taken as correct and genuine, there is no act of incitement on the part of the appellants proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide – No act is attributed to the appellants proximate to the time of suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide – In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against the appellants – Consequently, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and of the trial court are hereby set aside. [Paras 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 45, 46] Evidence – Handwriting Expert – Opinion of handwriting expert – Discussed. [Paras 42-44] Case Law Cited Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618; Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2009] 13 SCR 230 : (2009) 16 SCC 605; Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [2009] 15 434 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports SCR 836 : (2010) 1 SCC 707; Ude Singh v. State of Haryana [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17 SCC 301; Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 359; Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244; Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka (2024) SCC Online SC 3541; Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 1020; Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. [2002] 3 SCR 668 : (2002) 5 SCC 371; Kum
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.