(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH) 1.0 Present appeal u/s. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arises out of the judgment and order dated 11th October 1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Sessions Judge') in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1989, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit all the accused persons of the charges levelled against them under Sections 302, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2.0 Facts in nutshell of the prosecution case are that on 17th December 1988, complainant – Thakorbhai Ratanji along with his brother – Dilip had gone to water their field in which they had sown wheat. At that time, the accused persons – respondents herein, also came to water their field, situated nearby the field of the complainant. The accused persons asked the complainant and his brother to stop watering their field, to which the complainant denied and said that they both will share the water. The respondents – accused were not agreeable to that and hence, they stopped the water flow by putting stone in the canal. On complainant and his brother trying to remove the same to start the water flow, the accused persons attacked them. The accused No. 1 was having 'Dharia' with him; the accused No. 2 was having 'Pavdo' with him, whereas, accused Nos. 3 and 4 were having sticks with them. The accused abused the complainant and his brother. On asking not to abuse, the accused No. 1, who was having 'Dharia' with him, assaulted brother of the complainant, consequently he fell down. The accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also assaulted brother of the complainant with Pavda and sticks respectively with them. After that, the accused fled away to village Kachhol from there. The complainant took his injured brother – Dilip to the Olpad Government Dispensary and then to the Civil Hospital Surat, where he succumbed to the injuries. Thereby, the accused persons committed the offence under Sections 302, 323, 504, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.1 After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the accused were produced before the learned Sessions Judge, Surat. The learned Sessions Judge framed Charge against the accused and read over to the accused. The accused, in turn, pleaded not guilty to the Charge and consequently, the learned Sessions Judge conducted the trial.
2.2 To prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 10 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.
2.3 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused u/s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit all the respondents accused of all the charges levelled against them.
3.0 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
4.0 We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. LR Pujari. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge has materially erred in appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in discarding the evidence on the ground that the complainant had not received injury in spite of the fact that he was present at the time of occurrence of the incident and on the ground that the names of two witnesses were not mentioned in the complaint. 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.
5.0 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Zakir Modan for Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi for the respondents submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence which is forthcoming on the record and the reasons recorded by it for recording a finding of acquittal are reasonable and justifiable. He further submitted that there are glaring and major contradictions without any explanation in the deposition of prosecution witnesses and it seriously affects the root of the matter. Therefore, the respondents have rightly been acquitted by the trial Court. He further submitted that this being an Appeal against the order of acquittal, the judgment and order delivered by the trial Court deserves to be upheld as proper and plausible reasons for acquittal have been recorded. He lastly submitted that the Appeal be dismissed.
6.0 We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in light of the oral as well as documentary evidence forthcoming on the record. We have also perused the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge. Para 20 of the judgment goes to the root of the matter, whereby, the learned trial Judge has recorded contradiction in the evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded in the said Para that, 'the prosecution has succeeded only in proving the death of the deceased was caused due to injuries sustained by him, but the prosecution has failed in proving that the death was caused in the presence of complainant – Thakorbhai'. It is also mentioned in the said Para that, 'it is nowhere mentioned in the complaint that on hearing the shouting of the complainant at the time of occurrence, Bachubhai and Urmilaben rushed to the spot'. It is also mentioned in the said Para that, 'the evidence of the witnesses as regards Panchnama of place of offence and Discovery Panchnama are not satisfactory and cogent and there are significant contradictions in the version of the Panchwitnesses and also as regards the presence of Thakorbhai – the complainant. The prosecution has shown the presence of the complainant during Inquest Panchnama and at the same time, while lodging complaint at Surat'. Thus, there are material contradictions in the evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the considered view that the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them 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 appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 11th October 1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1989 is confirmed. Bail Bonds 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