1. By way of this appeal, the appellant- State has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, 11th Fast Track Court, Veraval (for short, 'the trial Court'), Dated : 20.02.2004, rendered in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2003, whereby, the learned trial Court Page 1 of 9 R/CR.A/758/2004 JUDGMENT acquitted the original accused Nos. 1 to 4- the Respondents, herein, of the charge under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, are that the complainant, who happened to be the mother of the deceased, lodged a complaint before the Una Police Station, wherein, she stated that accused No.1 happened to be the husband, whereas, accused No.2, 3 and 4 happened to be the father- in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased. It is alleged in the complaint that accused No.1 had extramarital affair and that all the accused also used to harass the deceased mentally and physically due to which the deceased consumed poison on 18.07.2003. The complainant, hence, lodged the complaint with the police. On registration of the complaint, police carried out investigation and on finding sufficient evidence, a charge-sheet was filed against all the accused. At the time of trial, since, the accused did not plead guilty, the trial was conducted.
3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution, in support of its case, examined four witnesses.
4. Apart from that the prosecution also produced several documents to strengthen its case, viz. the complaint, panchnama of place of offence, Page 2 of 9 R/CR.A/758/2004 JUDGMENT PM Note etc..
5. After recording the evidence of the witnesses and perusing the material on record, the trial Court passed the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.
6. Learned APP for the appellant-State, vehemently submitted that the trial Court committed a grave error in passing the impugned judgment and order, inasmuch as it failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective. She, submitted that taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution as well as the documentary evidences produced by it, the trial Court ought to have held the accused guilty of the charges leveled against them. She, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed.
7. On the other hand, Ms. Shah, learned Advocate for the accused-Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, herein, opposed the appeal and submitted that the trial Court acquitted the accused after perusing the entire material on record, and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the appeal be dismissed.
8. Heard learned APP for the appellant-State as well as the learned Advocate for the original Page 3 of 9 R/CR.A/758/2004 JUDGMENT accused and perused the material on record with their assistance.
9. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and having perused the material on record, Ms. Bhatt is unable to satisfy the conscience of this Court that the perversity has crept in the judgment and order of the trial Court. The learned trial Court has given elaborate reason, while passing the impugned judgment and order, and therefore, I do not deem it necessary to discuss the same here. From the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the accused caused harassment to the deceased so as to see that she put an end to her life. In above view of the matter, this Court has to look into the matter from the touchstone of the following recent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
10. The principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of an appeal by this Court, against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. In a latest decision in the case of "MURALIDHAR @ GIDDA AND ANR. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA", AIR 2014 SC 2200, the Apex Court has laid down the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 12 of the said decision, the Page 4 of 9 R/CR.A/758/2004 JUDGMENT Apex Court has observed as under;
"12. In dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial Court,
(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial Court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trail court are palpable wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if view taken by the court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial Court."
"SHIVASHARANAPPA & ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA", JT 2013 (7) SC 66 has held as under;
"That appellate Court is empowered to re- appreciate the entire evidence, though, certain other principles are also to be adhered to and it has to be kept in mind that acquittal results into double presumption of innocence."
12. The Apex Court in the case of "KULDEEP KAUR V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND", (2014) 10 SCC 584, observed as under in Paragraph Nos. 11 to 15:-
"11. Mr. Ahmadi contended that the finding of the trial court holding the petitioner guilty under Section 306, IPC is on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The trial court in its judgment pertaining to the appellant has reproduced a line from the diary of the deceased, which reads as "Still she wants me to work till late." It is contended that the trial court erred in presuming that when the deceased writes the above line in her diary she is referring to the appellant. It is further contended that conviction of the appellant deserves to be set aside as both the courts below failed to appreciate that the prosecution did not led any evidence on record to show that there was direct reasonable nexus between suicide and alleged cruelty. As both the courts below gave findings that there was no demand of dowry or any cruelty committed with the deceased in connection with demand of dowry and acquitted the appellant from charge under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and under sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Page 6 of 9 R/CR.A/758/2004 JUDGMENT Act, the courts below could not have come to a contradictory view that the deceased committed suicide due to cruelty committed by the appellant. Even in the diary, deceased has not written even a single word against the appellant. Perusal of the diary only shows, as also observed by the trial court in its decision in the trial of other accused persons including deceased's husband, that the deceased was depressed and has left no interest in life.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not disputed that although against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court acquitting the husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law and two sisters-in-law, the State preferred appeal but the same was dismissed by the High Court. However, no further appeal has been filed by the State before this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is fully justified.
13.We have perused the judgment passed by the trial court as also by the High Court. We have also gone through the judgments by which the husband, father- in-law, brother-in-law and two sisters- in-law have been acquitted by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. So far this appellant is concerned, she has also been acquitted against the charges of dowry harassment but she has been convicted under Section 306 IPC.
14.A perusal of trial court judgment pertaining to deceased's husband would show that PW1, father of the deceased, in his cross examination stated that no Page 7 of 9 R/CR.A/758/2004 JUDGMENT dowry was demanded by the accused persons from the day of alliance till solemnization of marriage. Whatever stridhan was given was as per the custom and as per his will in the form of gift to his daughter. He further stated that his daughter had not told him that in the absence of Upkar Singh she remained dejected in her matrimonial house because of her mother-in-law, father- in-law, sister-in-law and husband and elder brother-in-law on the issue of dowry. Witness himself stated that only God knows why her daughter committed suicide without any reason. This witness has stated that it is true to say that neither the accused persons abetted his daughter to commit suicide nor they harassed her.
15. We have given our anxious consideration in the matter and analyzed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In our considered opinion, the evidence adduced as against the appellant does not establish the case under Section 306 of the Code. On the basis of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, conviction of the appellant only cannot be sustained. Having regard to the fact of the case and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court acquitted all the accused persons except the present appellant and the said judgment was affirmed by the High Court. We do not find any strong reason to agree with the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court as against the appellant."
13. In view of the ratio laid down by the Page 8 of 9 R/CR.A/758/2004 JUDGMENT Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions and the factual scenario which emerges from record, it cannot be said that the accused, more particularly, accused No.1 meted out cruel treatment to the deceased so as to see that the deceased commits suicide. In light of aforesaid observations of the Apex Court and considering the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution successfully proved the offence under Section 498(A) and Section 306 read with Section 114 of IPC. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the trial Court requires no interference at the hands of this Court.
14. In the result, this appeal fails and is DISMISSED. The judgment and order of the trial Court, Dated : 20.02.2004, stands CONFIRMED. Bail bonds of the accused, if any, on bail, stands discharged. R & P be sent back to the concerned trial Court, forthwith.
(K.J.THAKER, J) UMESH Page 9 of 9