1. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.4.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar at in Sessions Case No.92 of 1999, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
2. Facts in brief of the prosecution case are such that the accused person caused mental and physical harassment to the deceased and the accused had beaten the deceased. Therefore, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself 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.92 of 1999. The trial was initiated against the respondents accused.
3. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 9 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 respondents of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 25.4.2000.
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 respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Learned APP for the appellant – State submitted that the deceased committed suicide due to ill treatment meted out by the accused. She further submitted that the due to illtreatment meted out by the accused upon the deceased, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself. She submitted that learned trial Judge has not properly considered and appreciated the evidence like medical certificate, original case papers, dying declaration etc. She also submitted that from the contents of dying declaration, the case against the accused is clearly established about their involvement in the commission of offence. She submitted that from the evidence of P.W.1 Ajitsinh, it appears that the accused meted out cruelty upon the deceased and they were compelling the accused to commit suicide. But the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence in proper manner and acquitted the accused of the charges. She read the evidence of P.W.2 Hardevsinh, P.W.3 Dr. Basantkumari, P.W.4 Dr. Tusharbhai, P.W.5 Maganbhai, P.W.6 Jethidan, P.W.7 Jayendrasinh, P.W.8 Laxmanbhai and P.W.9 Naranbhai and submitted that the witnesses examined before the trial Court, supported the case of prosecution, but learned trial Judge has not appreciated and passed the judgment and order of acquittal, which is not tenable in the eye of law. He, therefore, submitted that the accused committed offence as alleged and the accused are required to be convicted as the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused, without appreciating the evidence on record.
7. 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.
8. 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. Firstly, from the document at Exhibit 22, which is the original case papers issued by the hospital, wherein the deceased clearly stated that “I was beaten and I set myself ablazed.” Therefore, in the said document, nothing is stated by the deceased that the deceased was compelled by the accused persons to commit suicide or the alleged harassment on the part of the accused. Looking to the complaintcum dying declaration recorded by the Head Constable, at Exhibit 36, wherein the deceased stated that there was mental and physical torture caused by the accused and she set herself ablazed. Looking to both the documents, it appears that there are contradictions between the two and so far the cruelty on the part of the accused, in support of document Exhibit 36 and 22, the same are not supported by the documentary as well as oral evidence. The denial on the part of the accused with regard to go to parents house is not a cause falls under the provisions of Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. Even the parents had not supported the case of the prosecution. It is reflected the case that there was burn injury of 90 to 95% and the deceased was conscious and was in fit state of mind for recording her statement, create great doubt, as there was no certificate about her conscious while recording of statement. The cause of the deceased that she was denied by the accused to go to her parents house, is not a reason for committing suicide. Therefore, it can be said that the contents of both documents at Exhibit 22 and 36 are not corroborated with each other. From the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, it appears that learned trial Judge has discussed the aspects of abetment or instigation on the part of accused in detail and by appreciating rightly, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused of the charges.
9. 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.”
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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