1. Though served, but no one is appearing on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, today, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.
2. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4.1.1996 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.137 of 1993, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
3. Facts in brief of the prosecution case are such that the accused persons caused mental and physical harassment to the deceased and the accused had beaten the deceased. Therefore, as a last resort, the deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticides and died. It is alleged that the accused misbehaved with the deceased and, therefore, the attitude on the part of the accused, resulted into committing suicide. Therefore, the offence under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. Thereafter, necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondents were arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet was filed against them before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. 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.178 of 1994. The trial was initiated against the respondents accused.
4. To prove the case against the present accu sed, the prosecution has examined, in all 9 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.
5. 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 respondents of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order as aforesaid.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
7. 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 respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. He further submitted that the evidence of Rahim Mohmed Exhibit 17 is fully corroborated the case of the prosecution. From the contents of note at Exhibit 18, written by the deceased, it is established that the accused persons made harassment to the deceased and therefore, the deceased committed suicide. He further submitted that the complaint is corroborated with the evidence of the witness examined during the trial and thereby the offence is proved against the accused. He also submitted that the ingredients of Section 498(A) and 306 are proved against the accused. As per his submissions, the even from the contents of note written by the deceased, it is established that due to harassment on the part of the accused, the deceased was compelled to adopt th way of suicide by consuming pesticides and therefore, it can be said that the accused persons played important role in the commission of such offence. He further submitted that the accused was levelled the allegation of illicit relationship of with Rahimbhai, witness, but the said relationship was not proved by the accused during the trial and therefore, it can be said that the accused committed alleged offence. But the lower Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused of the charges. Therefore, he prays to allow this Appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and award of acquittal passed by the lower Court.
8. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. I have perused the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the trial Court. From the evidence, it is not established that the accused committed any kind of harassment to the deceased. Even from the evidence of Rahimbhai, who had been alleged to keep illicit relations with the deceased, it does not reflect any kind of harassment on the part of the accused. The handwriting expert had not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the writing of Exhibit 18. Even from the evidence of Hanifbhai, nothing is come out about the harassment of the accused to the deceased. There are so many contradictions between the evidence of the witnesses and documentary evidence produced on record. The evidence of witnesses are not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, it can be said that the ingredients of Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code are not established against the accused. Even the intention on the part of the accused, which leads to compel the deceased to commit suicide, is not established, therefore, the aspects of abetment or instigation or provocation on the part of the accused cannot be said to established. The note written by the deceased is also not supported by any evidence to believe that the contents of the note reflects the harassment on the part of the accused. Therefore, lower Court has rightly acquitted the accused by appreciating the evidence in true spirit and manner.
9. 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.
10. 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.”
11. 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.
12. 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 her.
13. 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.
14. 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.
ynvyas (Z.K. SAIYED, J.)