1. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 6.1.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.520 of 1994, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2.1 The deceased Kokilaben married with accused before 8 years from the date of incident. After some time of marriage, the accused caused harassment to the deceased Kokilaben and therefore, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and died. Therefore, the offence was registered against the accused under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class. 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.52 of 1994. The trial was initiated against the respondent accused.
2.3 To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 7 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.
2.4 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 6.1.1996 .
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
4. 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 read the charge at Exhibit 1 and submitted that the accused caused mental and physical harassment to the deceased and therefore, the deceased committed suicide. She also submitted that the deceased stated in her dying declaration because there was no relation in the hospital except the accused and as she did not state about harassment caused by the accused, it is not believed that the accused had not caused torture to the deceased. She submitted that as per evidence of P.W.2 Babubhai Hamraji at Exhibit 13, it is clearly reflected that the deceased was beaten by the accused and accused caused mental and physical torture. She submitted that this witness submitted a letter reflecting the harassment made by the accused and the said letter was written by the deceased. From the evidence of P.W.3 Sarojben, it appears that the quarrels took place between the accused and deceased oftenly. Also from the evidence of P.W.5 Badhaji Shakraji Damor at Exhibit 28, the fact is appeared about the harassment caused by the accused. Therefore, the prosecution proved the case against the accused, but the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused and therefore, by way of this Appeal, she prayed to allow the appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of the trial Court.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Nasir Saiyed for Mr. Pancholi appearing on behalf of the respondent – accused submitted that in the case, the material evidence is the dying declaration and as per the dying declaration, it is reflected that while lighting the stove, the deceased received burn injuries and she died. The said dying declaration was recorded by the public servant, Executive Magistrate. Therefore, the allegations against the accused that the accused caused harassment to the deceased, as a result, the deceased committed suicide and died, cannot be said to be proved against the accused. Even the ingredients under Sections 498(A) and 306 are not established against the accused. He also submitted that there are several contradictions between the evidence of the witnesses and documents. He further submitted that offence under Section 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not proved against the accused and therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused and the judgment and order is not required to be interfered by this Court.
6. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. From the record, it appears that complaint regarding the incident was not immediately filed and the complaint was lodged after two days from the incident. The complainant admitted in cross examination that the deceased died while she was making tea. From the evidence of the witnesses, nothing come out about the case as per the complainant that due to harassment on the part of the accused, the deceased committed suicide and died. From the dying declaration, it has been come out that the deceased herself received burn injuries while she was making tea and she had not stated that due to harassment, she committed suicide. Therefore, the dying declaration, which is material evidence is not supported to the case of the prosecution and the deceased had not stated against the accused, it is believed that the deceased on her own received burn injuries and died. Even the ingredients under Section 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted to the case of the accused. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him.
7. 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.”
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
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 respondents of the charges leveled against them.
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.
(Z.K. SAIYED, J.) ynvyas