1. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.9.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No.196 of 1994, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are such that the wife of one S.R.P. Constable committed suicide by jumping in the well and died. Therefore, the offence was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondent was arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet was filed against him before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, which was numbered as Sessions Case No.196 of 1994. The trial was initiated against the respondent accused.
3. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 13 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.
4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 30.9.1995.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
6. It is submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri for the appellant – State read the charge at Exhibit 3 and submitted that the from the charges levelled against the accused, the case is proved against the accused by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. She further submitted that the mother of the deceased stated that the deceased wrote a letter citing that the she was harassed by the accused. She also submitted that the ingredients of Section 107 and 108 are required to be considered as the documentary evidence prima facie prove the case against the accused. She further submitted that it is not an accidental case, but due to provocation and instigation on the part of the accused, the deceased committed suicide. She also submitted that learned trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence properly during the trial. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present Appeal.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Desai for the respondent – accused submitted that learned trial Judge rightly acquitted the accused, by appreciating the evidence in true manner. He submitted that all the witnesses were declared hostile and the case of the prosecution was not supported by the documentary evidence. The ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are not established. Even the witness have no personal knowledge about the incident. He submitted that the fact is that when the deceased went to take water from the well, she fell down in the well and nothing else except this, but the case is wrongly created the accused by the complainant. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
8. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. First of all, looking to the evidence on record, it appears that the witnesses Ganeshbhai at Exhibit 14, Baijiben at Exhibit 15, Vimlaben at Exhibit 16 and Ichchaben at Exhibit 17 as well as Amaullakhan at Exhibit 19, they turned hostile. Therefore, it appears that prosecution filed to prove the case against the accused. The ingredients of Section 498(A) and 306 are not established and even from the evidence, it comes out that the witnesses have now personal knowledge about the incident. Only the evidence of the mother of the deceased reflects that the deceased was harassed by the accused, but in support this version, there is no any supported documentary evidence like letter, which is said to have written by the deceased to her, is not produced nor any evidence of witness supported the version. Therefore, it can be said that prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. Hence, learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the accused.
9. At the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following principles:
“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
[1] An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
[3] Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
[4] An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
[5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
10. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
11. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
12. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellantState. Thus, from the evidence itself, it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
13. Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record.
14. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him.
15. I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
15. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings to be sent back to trial Court, forthwith.
(Z.K. SAIYED, J.) ynvyas