[1] The present Appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat against the Judgment and order dated 04.07.1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1993, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents - original accused from the charges alleged against them.
[2] The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of Manjulaben, daughter of the complainant was solemnized with Dhirubhai Jerambhai, respondent No.1 (original accused No.1) before about four months from the date of incident. It is alleged in the complaint that Manjulaben the daughter of the complainant was residing with her in-laws. It is alleged in the complaint that the husband and her inlaws are giving mental as well as physical torture frequently to her. It is alleged that thereafter on 08.07.1992 at about 6.30 in the morning, Manjulaben, the daughter of the complainant has committed suicide on pouring kerosene herself. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence under Sections 498(A), 306, of I.P. Code.
[3] Necessary investigation was carried out, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondents - accused in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Thereafter, as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondents - accused. The respondents - accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
[4] To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and relied upon certain documents. At the end of trial, after recording the statements of the respondents - accused, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned Judgment and order, has acquitted the respondents - accused from the charges levelled against them.
[5] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal.
[6] Heard learned A.P.P. Ms. Hansa Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellant - State of Gujarat and learned advocate Ms.Varsha Brahmbhatt for learned advocate Ms.Kalpna Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the respondents. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court and also considered the documents produced on the record of the case.
[7] Learned APP, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is without considering the facts and evidence on the record. She has contended that looking to the complaint and the deposition of the witnesses it clearly appears that due to the harassment by the husband and in-laws, the deceased Manjulaben had, on pouring kerosene herself, committed suicide. She has also contended that, prima-facie, it appears that due to mental and physical torture from the husband and other family members, she committed the suicide. The learned APP has also drawn the attention of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and contended that from the deposition of witnesses it clearly appears that there was mental harassment on the part of the accused and her husband. She has also read the medical evidence as also the Post Mortem Report and contended that the death of deceased was caused due to extensive burn. She has, therefore, contended that looking to the over all evidence, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them. She, therefore, contended that the Judgment and order of the trial Court is bad in law and perverse and, therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.
[8] Learned advocate for the respondents has contended that the learned Judge, after hearing the parties and relying upon the evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them. She has contended that the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate and deposition of Dr.Dharmesh Hasmukhrai Shah are not supported the case of the prosecution. Even the deposition of Dr.Dharmesh Shah is also not supported deposition of Executive Magistrate. She has also contended that the learned Judge has held that there was different opinion between the two doctors regarding "conscious" or "semi conscious" of the deceased Manjulaben. She has contended that from the endorsement of the case paper, it appears that at that relevant period, the deceased was semi conscious. She has further contended that looking to the P.M. Note, it appears that the deceased has received 90% burn injury. She has urged that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the judgment and order deserves to be confirmed.
[9] I have gone through the papers produced before me as also the Judgment of the Court below. I have also considered the oral as well as documentary produced on record. From the deposition of witnesses it appears that the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and though they are related to the deceased, not a single witness has deposed anything about the conduct or mis-behaviour of the accused with the deceased. From their depositions the prosecution could not be able to prove that due to physical and mental cruelty the deceased committed suicide. I have also gone through the main ingredients of Section 498-A I.P.Code, which reads as under :
"498-A
- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine -
[Explanation
- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means
-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand] [10] Cruelty must prove through direct evidence of witnesses. Here, in the present case, from the oral evidence of witnesses, the prosecution could not be able to prove that due to the conduct and harassment by the accused the deceased has committed suicide. The learned Judge, in his Judgment in Para - 11 has clearly observed that looking to the facts and circumstances, whether Manjuben has given her statement or not and whether the Executive Magistrate has recorded the statement in the form of question - answer. It is not disclosed about the burn injury. It is observed by the learned Judge that it is not clear fact about burn injury, when deceased was cooking. Looking to the evidence of Dr.Shah and Dr.Godhani, it is clear that it is doubtful, Manjuben was in position to give her statement. The prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was harassed by the accused. There are material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. No independent witnesses have been examined to support the case of the prosecution. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it appears that the accused have been falsely involved in the case. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Judge has not committed any error in not believing the case of prosecution. In my opinion, therefore, the Judgment of the trial Court is proper and no interference is called for.
[11] It is settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents - accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed.
[12] In view of above, the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 04.07.1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1993 is hereby confirmed. Bail Bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record & Proceeding to be sent back to the trial Court immediately.
( Z. K. SAIYED, J. ) vijay Top