(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH) 1.0 Present appeals u/s. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arise out of the judgment and order dated 23rd December 1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Sessions Judge') in Sessions Case Nos. 101 of 1987 and 102 of 1987, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit all the accused in both the Sessions Cases of the charges under Sections 302, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the respondent herein – original accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1987 was held guilty of the offence under Section 202 of the IPC and under Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and was imposed punishment of imprisonment of 03 months and fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment of one month.
2.0 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pujari has submitted the Report prepared by Police Inspector, Siddhpur Police Station dated 2nd May 2012. Referring the same it appears that, husband of deceased Shardaben namely Amratji Mafaji, the respondent No. 1 herein – original accused No. 1 has expired and considering the said fact, the present appeal has abated against him.
3.0 Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 29th March 1985, at 9:00 p.m., when deceased Shardaben the sister of the complainant was at her matrimonial house, the respondent No. 1 herein – original accused No. 1 – Amratji Mafaji, who happened to be the husband of deceased – Shardaben assaulted her on her head with knife. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 – original accused Nos. 2 to 5, who happened to be the inlaws of the deceased, abetted the accused respondent No. 1 herein by holding her. They also gave her fist and kick blows. Thereby, the respondents herein – original accused killed the deceased. After killing, in order to hide the guilt, the respondents herein – original accused, threw away the dead body of the deceased in a well situated in the sim of village Visol, near Chandalaj and thereafter, without informing the complainant as well as police about the death of the deceased, they cremated the dead body. Thus, the accused were alleged to have committed the offence as above for which complaint had been lodged against them.
3.1 As the offence was triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Siddhpur committed the case to the Sessions Court at Mahesana. The accused were produced before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge framed Charge against the accused and read over to them. The accused, in turn, pleaded not guilty to the charge and consequently, the learned Sessions Judge conducted the trial.
3.2 To prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 05 witnesses. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has produced on record several documentary evidence, which were also taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge.
3.3 At the end of trial, statements of the accused u/s. 313 of the CrPC were recorded in which they denied all the charges levelled against them. After hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused of both the Sessions Cases of the charges under Sections 302, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the respondent herein – original accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1987 was held guilty of the offence under Section 202 of the IPC and Section 176 of the CrPC and was imposed punishment of imprisonment of 03 months and fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment of one month.
4.0 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal.
5.0 We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. LR Pujari. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge has erred in appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and thereby, acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 302, 201 and 114 of the IPC. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge has erred in discarding the evidence of the complainant whose evidence get corroboration from F.I.R., which was lodged after the incident was occurred. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned trial Judge has erred in discarding the evidence of eyewitness Jayababen, who has supported the case of the prosecution. That her (Jayababen's) house was situated near the house of the deceased. The incident had occurred at about 9:00 p.m. at night when, Jayaben was washing the utensils. She has also described the incident, how the accused had assaulted and injured the deceased. So, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, her presence is quite natural. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned trial Judge has erred in discarding the evidence of eyewitness – Jayababen on the ground of her conduct as she had not disclosed the names of the persons who had gathered there. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge has committed error in discarding the evidence of P.W. 3 – Amratji Dhamaji, exh. 13, who had seen the dead body of the deceased in the well and presence of respondent – accused No. 1 near the well. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered that the conduct of the accused was unnatural as they have not informed the police after the incident and they have also cremated the dead body of the deceased. He also submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the respondents – accused did not care to inform the relatives of the deceased about her death and the learned trial Judge has materially erred in acquitting the accused of Sessions Case No.
102 of 1987, though there were ample direct and indirect evidence on record connecting the accused with the crime. Last but not the least, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous, contrary to law and evidence on record and is required to be quashed and set aside.
5.1 On the contrary, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for Mr. RC Jani, learned advocate for the respondents – original accused submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and the reasons recorded by it for acquitting the respondents – original accused of the offence charged against them, are plausible and cogent. He submitted that there are glaring contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, which go to the root of the matter. It is further argued that this being an appeal against an order of acquittal, the judgment and order rendered by the trial Court deserves to be upheld as proper and plausible reasons for acquittal have been recorded. They, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
6.0 We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as by the learned advocate for the respondents original accused in light of the oral as well as documentary evidence forthcoming on the record. We have also perused the judgment impugned in the present appeal. The learned Sessions Judge has taken all pains and has dealt with all the aspects of the case on hand. The learned trial Judge, in Para 10 of the Judgment, has specifically stated that, '...the complainant, in his crossexamination has, admitted that though Jayababen (her sister) had apprised him all the facts about the incident, he, while registering the complaint in the Police Station, has not stated any of the facts, as was stated by Jayababen and has only stated about the performing of cremation ceremony without being informed the complainant. In the circumstances, a person, whose sister was murdered and though all the facts were informed to him by Jayababen, he registered complaint only to the extent of performance of cremation ceremony without being informed him and without the fact of commission of murder, is not believable...' (emphasis supplied)
6.1 The learned trial Judge has further observed in the said paragraph that, '...on the day of the incident, at about 9:00 p.m. in the night, when Jayababen was washing utensils she heard some quarrel taking place at her sister's (deceased Sharda) house. Hence, she rushed there. She saw accused No. 2 to 4 were delivering kick and fist blows, whereas, her husband (sister's) – accused No. 1 and accused No. 5 were inflicting knife blows to her. When she tried to intervene, she was forced to leave the house by the accused saying 'not to interfere in their matter'. Generally, when a woman sees that her sister is being assaulted with weapons by her husband, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw, and if she is asked not to interfere in the matter, does she simply return her home? Moreover, it was summer season and people used to sleep outside their houses on the cots. There were 150200 houses in the area. The incident had occurred at about 9:00 p.m. and 1520 people gathered there. She could not identify any of the said persons, who reside in the area. Moreover, 10 to 15 persons gathered at the house of her sister. However, she could not identify them. The said fact is in no way believable. It is also not believable that though the accused were beating her sister, Jayaben returned her home, she did not inform anybody about the incident, not even to her family members, nor her parental house, which was two kilometers away from there, or to her other sisters who were residing in the same village and straightway she went to sleep, though her sister was badly injured.
This conduct of Jayababen is doubtful...' (emphasis supplied)
6.2 It is further observed in the said paragraph by the learned trial Judge that, 'neither the facts stated nor any complaint made by Jayababen were reflected in the complaint registered in the Siddhpur Police Station. But it appears that, the said facts were fabricated later on and registered the complaint saying Jayababen had witnessed the offence...' It is also stated in the said paragraph that, 'though Jayababen was knowing everything about the incident, she did not inform her brother about the same. Moreover, she did not go to her parental house and inform them about the incident. Besides, on such occasion also, she did not go to her sister's house and also she went away to her home from the place of incident. Under the circumstances, her evidence is not believable...'. (emphasis supplied)
6.3 The learned trial Judge further goes to state in the said paragraph that, 'though Amratji, who happened to be the cousin brother of the deceased (son of the sister of the father of the deceased), came to know about the death of her cousin sister (deceased), he did not inform about the same to his uncle (Mama – the father of the deceased). He also did not inform about the same to other three sisters, who were residing in the same village. Instead, he went to Brahmanwada to his home and apprised the fact to his father and on the next day only, he informed about the incident to his uncle (Mama). In the circumstances, the evidence of Amratji is also not believable...'. (emphasis supplied)
6.4 The learned trial Judge, in Para 11 of the judgment has observed that, 'the complainant has stated that he received the message about death of the deceased on 30th at about 2:00 o'clock. However, the fact differs as regards the name of the person, who had given him the said message. As per the say of the complainant, Amratji had given him the message, whereas, in the complaint lodged before the Siddhpur Police Station on 30th, he has stated that he had got the said message from one Prahladji Visaji. Thus, the facts stated in both the complaints, one before the Siddhpur Police Station and another before the Siddhpur Court, are contradictory...'. (emphasis supplied)
6.5 It is also mentioned in the abovesaid paragraph that, 'the complainant, instead of going to her deceased sister's house directly, first went to Jayababen's house, which is also admitted by the complainant himself and from there, he directly went to the Siddhpur Police Station for lodging the complaint together with his brother Kapurji, who was serving as a Police Constable. In complaint also, except the fact of cremation of deceased without being informed to the complainant, no fact of beating/assaulting the deceased by her inlaws had been given...'. (emphasis supplied).
6.6 Thus, considering the totality of the aspects dealt with, evidence on record and appreciation of the same by the learned trial Judge, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly acquitted the accused as above and we find ourselves in agreement with the same.
7.0 It is well settled that in acquittal appeal, where there is a possibility of two views, the one favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is also well settled principles of law that the Appellate Court would be slow to interfere in an order of acquittal until and unless the judgment of the trial court is perverse or demonstrably unsustainable. In the present Appeal, we find that the reasons given by the learned trial Court are plausible, cogent and convincing. Thus, in light of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error in acquitting the accused.
7.1 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
“… This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.”
7.2 Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then the detailed discussion of evidence is not necessary.
8.0 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no substance in the appeals. The appeals fail and are dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23rd December 1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana in Sessions Case Nos. 101 of 1987 and 102 of 1987 is confirmed. Bailbonds stand cancelled.
8.1 The office shall send back the Record & Proceeding to the trial Court forthwith, after following the due procedure.
[ Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ] [ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren